वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

[SŪ 3. 3. 2. 578 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 1.] the repetition of one and the same vidyā is appropriate sometimes, because the readers are diffcrent, and sometimes for making the topic clear Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected : the same vidyās are often found repeated in the very same form in different sections. Hence the object to be meditated on must be different, and so the vidyās cannot be identical,— We reply : Such repetitions of the same vidyās in different sections are quite reasonable, as they serve a useful purpose. The same vidyā, set forth in one branch, is set forth again in the same form in other branches for the benefit of the different readers of those branches. If there be differences in some parts, then the device of the combination of points is to be resorted to.¹ In the case of one and the same branch, on the other hand, the readers being the same, every section deals with a different vidyā, since the texts are mutually sufficient by themselves.² ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― ¹ Vide Br. Sū 3.3.5. ² The sense is as follows : If one and the same vidyā be repeated in different Upaniṣads and so on, then there must evidently be some reasonable explanation for such a repetition. The prima facie objector points out that such a repetition serves no purpose and hence we must hold that really there is no repetition of the same vidyā, but that each is a new and separate vidyā, concerned with a different object. The answer to this is that such a repetition of one of the same vidyā in different branches of the Vedas is not meaningless, but serves two purposes:— (a) First, such a repetition is for the benefit of the different readers of the different branches of the Vedas. Each and every person does not evidently study each and every branch of the Vedas, but may read only one or some. A man, e.g. who studies the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, may not study the Chāndogya as well, and vice versa. Hence one and the same vidyā is set forth in both these Upaniṣads in order that both these persons may equally have an access to the vidyā in question. (b) Secondly, such a repetition serves to rectify possible mistakes, and make the topic clearer and confirm what has been already said. Thus, the fact that we meet with the same vidyā in different branches gives rise to no inconsistency. In the case of one and the same branch, however, the above two purposes being absent, there is no such repetition. Hence here every section deals with a different vidyā.