Aphorisms on Brahman 12.21

12.21

3-4-21,22
|omityetadakṣaramudgīthamupāsīta |sa eṣa rasānāṃ rasatamaḥ paramaḥ parārthyo'ṣṭamo yadudgīthaḥ|ityetajjātīyake kiṃ karmāṅgāśrayāṇāṃ dṛṣṭiviśeṣāṇāṃ vidhirāstheyaḥ, utodgīthādistutimātramiti saṃśayaḥ| vidhitve siddhe hi godohanādivadbhavati; vidhitvameva na
saṃbhavatīti pūrvaḥ pakṣaḥ| |iyameva juhūssavargo loka āhavanīyaḥ|itivat karmāṅgabhūtodgīthādisaṃbandhitayopādānādrasatamatvādeḥ tatstutimātratvameva; na rasatamatvādidṛṣṭividhiḥ| rāddhāntastu- juhvādividhivadudgīthādividheratrā sannidhānāt, rasatamatvāderaprāptatvācca, upāsīteti vidhipratyayena ca, na stutimātram, taddṛṣṭividhireva| sūtradvayamapi vyākhyātam|| iti stutimātrādhikaraṇam||

3-4-21, 22
In passages of this class, such as ‘Let one meditate on the syllable Om, the udgītha...’, ‘That which is the udgītha is this very essence of essences, the highest, the supreme, the eighth’, there is a doubt: Is an injunction of specific viewpoints based on auxiliaries of action to be accepted, or is it a mere praise of the udgītha and so on? If it were established to be an injunction, it would be like the milk-pail and so on; but the prima facie view is that an injunction itself is impossible. As in ‘This [earth] indeed is the ladling-spoon, the heavenly world is the āhavanīya fire’, because being the essence of essences and so on are introduced in connection with the udgītha and so on which are auxiliaries to action, it is merely praise of them; it is not an injunction of the viewpoint of being the essence of essences and so on. But the established conclusion is: because the injunction of the udgītha and so on is not proximate here as the injunction of the spoon and so on is, and because being the essence of essences and so on are not previously established, and by the injunctive affix in ‘let one meditate’, it is not mere praise, but an injunction of that viewpoint. Both aphorisms have also been explained. Thus ends the topical section on mere praise.