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
/s/akha in which the meditation actually is met with, but for all
/s/akhas.--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,
/S/a/nd/ilyavidya, &c. remain separate.

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 udgitha.

PADA 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 pravrajins is enjoined
by the sacred law, and that for them vidya only is prescribed, not
action.--Adhik. III (21, 22) decides that certain clauses forming part
of vidyas are not mere stutis (arthavadas), 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 arthavadas--the injunctions with w