भेदान्नेति चेत्, न, एकस्यामपि ॥ २ ॥
bhedānneti cet, na, ekasyāmapi || 2 ||
bhedāt—On account of difference na—not; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; ekasyāmapi—even in the same (Vidya).
2. If it be said (that the Vidyas are) not (one) on account of difference (in minor points), (we reply) not so, since even in the same Vidya (there might be such minor differences).
A further objection is raised that since certain differences are seen to exist with respect to the Vidyas described in different Sakhas, they cannot be one. For example, in the Brhadaranyaka in the Panchagni Vidya a sixth fire is mentioned as an object of worship: “The fire becomes his fire” (Brih. 3. 2. 14); whereas in the Chhandogya we have, “But he who knows these five fires” (Chh. 5. 10. 10). Therefore on account of difference in form the two Vidyas cannot be one. This Sutra refutes it and says that they are one, since even in the same Vidya there may be differences of form. The five fires like heaven etc. mentioned in the Chhandogya are identified in the Brihadaranyaka. Therefore there can be no difference in Vidya. Nor can the presence or absence of a sixth fire create a difference as regards form, for in the same Atiratra sacrifice the Shodasi vessel may or may not be taken. On the other hand, on account of the majority of fires being recognized in both, it is reasonable that we should add the sixth fire to the Vidya in the Chhandogya. The name ‘five fires’ is also no objection against this increase of number, for the number five is not an essential part of the injunction. Moreover, even in the same Sakha and in the same Vidya differences like this are seen in different chapters; yet the Vidya described in these different chapters is taken on all hands as one. Therefore in spite of these differences in different Sakhas it is reasonable that Vidyas of the same class are one and not different.