कामादीतरत्र तत्र च, आयतनादिभ्यः ॥ ३९ ॥
kāmādītaratra tatra ca, āyatanādibhyaḥ || 39 ||
kāmādi—(True) desire etc.; itaratra—in the other; tatra—(those mentioned) in the other; ca—and; āyatanādibhyaḥ—on account of the abode etc.
39. (Qualities like true) desire etc. (mentioned in the Chhandogya are to be inserted) in the other (i.e. in the Brihadaranyaka) and (those mentioned) in the other (i.e. in the Brihadaranyaka are also to be inserted in the Chhandogya), on account of the abode etc. (being the same in both).
In the Chhandogya 8. 1. 1 we have, “There is the city of Brahman and in it the palace-like lotus and in that the small ether . . . That is the Self” etc. Again in the Brihadaranyaka 4. 4. 22 we have, “That great birthless Self which is identified with the intellect . . . lies(?) in the ether that is within the heart.” The question is whether the two constitute one Vidva and hence the particulars are to be combined, or not. The Sutra says that they form one Vidya, and the qualities mentioned in each are to be combined in the other, ior many points are common to both. There is the same abode, the same Lord is the object of meditation, and sc on. There is, however, one difference between the two texts. The Chhandogya treats of the Saguna Brahman while the Brihadaranyaka treats of the Nirguna Brahman. But then as the Saguna Brahman is in reality one with the Nirguna, this Sutra prescribes combination of qualities for glorifying Brahman, and not for the purpose of Upasana.