Sutra 3.3.24

24. And although (they both be) meditations on man; on account of others not being recorded.

In the Taittiriyaka as well as the Chāndogya we meet with a meditation on man (purusha-vidyā), in which parts of the sacrifice are fancifully identified with the parts of the human body.—Here the Pūrvapakshin maintains that these two meditations are identical; for, he says, both meditations have the same name (purusha-vidyā), and the same character as stated above; and as the Taittirīyaka mentions no fruit of the meditation, the fruit declared in the Chāndogya holds good for the Taittirīyaka also, and thus there is no difference of fruit.—This view the Sūtra negatives. Although both meditations are meditations on man, yet they are separate 'on account of the others not being recorded,' i.e. on account of the qualities recorded in one śākhā not being recorded in the other. For the Taittirīyaka mentions the three libations, while the Chāndogya does not, and so on. The character of the two meditations thus differs. And there is a difference of result also. For an examination of the context in the Taittirīyaka shows that the purusha-vidyā is merely a subordinate part of a meditation on Brahman, the fruit of which the text declares to be that the devotee reaches the greatness of Brahman; while the Chāndogya meditation is an independent one, and has for its reward the attainment of long life. The two meditations are thus separate, and hence the details of one must not be included in the other.—Here terminates the adhikaraṇa of 'the meditation on man.'