7. Or not, on account of difference of subject-matter; as in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high, and so on.
There is no unity of the two vidyâs, since the subject-matter of the two differs. For the tale in the Khândogya-text, which begins 'when the Devas and the Asuras struggled together,' connects itself with the pranava (the syllable Om) which is introduced as the object of meditation in Khánd. I, 1, 1, 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as the Udgîtha'; and the clause forming part of the tale,'they meditated on that chief breath as Udgîtha.' therefore refers to a meditation on the pranava which is a part only of the Udgîtha. In the text of the Vâga-saneyins; on the other hand, there is nothing to correspond to the introductory passage which in the Khândogya-text determines the subject-matter, and the text clearly states that the meditation refers to the whole Udgîtha (not only the pranava). And this difference of leading subject-matter implies difference of matter enjoined, and this again difference of the character of meditation, and hence there is no unity of vidyâs. Thus the object of meditation for the Khandogas is the pranava viewed under the form of Prâna; while for the Vâgasaneyins it is the Udgâtri (who sings the Udgîtha), imaginatively identified with Prâna. Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between the later and the earlier part of the story of the Vâgasaneyins. For as a meditation on the Udgâtri necessarily
extends to the Udgîtha, which is the object of the activity of singing, the latter also helps to bring about the result, viz. the mastering of enemies.--There is thus no unity of vidyâ, although there may be non-difference of injunction, and so on.--'As in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high,' &c. In one and the same sâkhâ there are two meditations, in each of which the highest Self is enjoined to be viewed under the form of the pranava (Kh. Up. I, 6; I, 9), and in so far the two vidyâs are alike. But while the former text enjoins that the pranava has to be viewed under the form of a golden man, in the latter he has to be viewed as possessing the attributes of being higher than the high, and owing to this difference of attributes the two meditations must be held separate (a fortiori, then, those meditations are separate which have different objects of meditation).