another objection is raised, Scripture says that he who meditates on Brahman as satyakama, &c. obtains a mere perishable reward, viz. the world of the fathers, and similar results specified in Ch.  Up.  VIII, 2; hence, he who is desirous of final release, must not include those qualities of Brahman in his meditation.—­To this objection Sutra 41 replies, ’Because that (i.e. the free roaming in all the worlds, the world of the fathers, &c.) is stated as proceeding therefrom (i.e. the approach to Brahman which is final release) in the case of (the soul) which has approached Brahman;’ (therefore a person desirous of release, may include satyakamatva, &c. in his meditations.)

Adhik.  XXVII (42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain matters forming constituent parts of sacrificial actions, are not to be considered as permanently requisite parts of the latter.—­Adhik.  XXVIII (43) teaches that, in a B/ri/.  Up. passage and a similar Ch.  Up. passage, Vayu and Pra/n/a are not to be identified, but to be held apart.—­Adhik.  XXIX (44-52) decides that the firealtars made of mind, &c., which are mentioned in the Agnirahasya, do not constitute parts of the sacrificial action (so that the mental, &c. construction of the altar could optionally be substituted for the actual one), but merely subjects of meditations.

Adhik.  XXX (53, 54) treats, according to Sa@nkara, in the way of digression, of the question whether to the Self an existence independent of the body can be assigned, or not (as the Materialists maintain).—­According to the Sri-bhashya the adhikara/n/a does not refer to this wide question, but is concerned with a point more immediately connected with the meditations on Brahman, viz. the question as to the form under which, in those meditations, the Self of the meditating devotee has to be viewed.  The two Sutras then have to be translated as follows:  ’Some (maintain that the soul of the devotee has, in meditations, to be viewed as possessing those attributes only which belong to it in its embodied state, such as j/n/at/ri/tva and the like), because the Self is (at the time of meditation) in the body.’—­The next Sutra rejects this view, ’This is not so, but the separatedness (i.e. the pure isolated state in which the Self is at the time of final release when it is freed from all evil, &c.) (is to be transferred to the meditating Self), because that will be[18] the state (of the Self in the condition of final release).’

Adhik.  XXXI (55, 56) decides that meditations connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice, such as the udgitha, are, in spite of difference of svara in the udgitha, &c., valid, not only for that sakha in which the meditation actually is met with, but for all sakhas.—­Adhik.  XXXII (57) decides that the Vai/s/vanara Agni of Ch.  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 daharavidya, Sa/nd/ilyavidya, &c. remain separate.