अन्यथा भेदानुपपत्तिरिति चेत्, न, उपदेशान्तरवत् ॥ ३६ ॥
anyathā bhedānupapattiriti cet, na, upadeśāntaravat || 36 ||
anyathā—Otherwise; bheda-anupapattiḥ—the repetition cannot be accounted for; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; upadeśānta-ravat—like another instruction (in the Chhandogya).
36. If it be said (that the two Vidyas are separate, for) otherwise the repetition cannot be accounted for, (we say) not so; (it is) like (the repetition) in another instruction (in the Chhandogya).
An objection is raised that unless the two texts refer to two different Selves, the repetition of the same subject would be meaningless. This Sutra says that it is not like that. The repetition has a significance. It is intended to make the student understand the subject more convincingly from different angles, and so the repetition does not justify us to take that two different Selves are taught here, even as the repetition of the teaching ‘Thou art That’ nine times does not entitle us to take the whole teaching in the Chhandogya as more than one Vidya. The difference in answer is due to the fact that the second answer tells something special about the Self. In the first it is taught that the Self is different from the body; in the second, that It is beyond relative attributes.