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 udgîtha.


PÂDA 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 pravrâjins is enjoined
by the sacred law, and that for them vidyâ only is prescribed, not
action.--Adhik. III (21, 22) decides that certain clauses forming part
of vidyâs are not mere stutis (arthavâdas), but themselves enjoin the
meditation.--The legends recorded in the Vedânta-texts are not to be
used as subordinate members of acts, but have the purpose of
glorifying--as arthavâdas--the injunctions with which they are connected
(Adhik. IV, 23, 24).--For all these reasons the ûrdhvaretasa/h/ require
no actions but only knowledge (Adhik. V, 25).--Nevertheless the actions
enjoined by Scripture, such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds,
&c., are required as conducive to the rise of vidyâ in the mind (Adhik.
VI, 26, 27).--Certain relaxations, allowed by Scripture, of the laws
regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need (Adhik. VII,
28-3l).--The â/s/ramakarmâ/n/i are obligatory on him also who does not
strive after mukti (Adhik. VIII, 32-35).--Those also who, owing to
poverty and so on, are anâ/s/rama have claims to vidyâ (Adhik. IX,
36-39).--An ûrdhvaretas cannot revoke his vow (Adhik. X, 40).--Expiation
of the fall of an ûrdhvaretas (Adhik. XI, 41, 42).--Exclusion of the