The rite of carrying fire on the head is an appendage of Vedic study, because it is stated to be so in the Samachara and also because of competence. And that regulation is like that about libations.
ॐ अन्यथात्वं च शब्दादिति चेन्नाविशेषात् ॐ ॥ ३.३.७॥
ॐ anyathatvam ca sabdaditi cennavisesat ॐ || 3.3.7||
If it be said that the (Udgitha) meditations (in the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads) are different on account of the difference of (texts), then not so, for there is no difference.
ॐ na va prakaranabhedatparovariyastvadivat ॐ || 3.3.8||
Rather not owing to a difference of subject-matter even as in such cases as (meditation on the Udgitha as) possessed of the quality of being higher than the high, (greater than the great).
If from the sameness of name, (the two meditations are held to be the same), that has already been answered. But that (sameness of name) is met with (even with regard to things quite different).
ॐ प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिरुपचयापचयौ हि भेदे ॐ ॥ ३.३.१३॥
ॐ priyasirastvadyapraptirupacayapacayau hi bhede ॐ || 3.3.13||
Attributes such as having joy as the head and so on are not to be added everywhere, since (they have) degrees of intensity and feebleness, (which are) possible in a context of difference (ie., duality).
The supreme Self is to be understood in the Aitareya Upanishad, just as elsewhere (in other texts about creation), on account of the subsequent qualification.
If it be objected that it follows from the trend of the sentences that the Supreme Self is not meant, (the reply is that) it must be so because of the definite statement (that the Self alone existed in the beginning).
Elsewhere also (in the case of meditation on Satya-Brahman), (the attributes have to be combined) as here (in the case of Sandilya-Vidya), on account of the very fact of connection (with the same object of meditation).
And (the attributes of Brahman such as) possession of unchallenged powers and pervasion of heaven are also not to be added to other meditations for the same reason.
And the characteristics of the Purusha-Vidya are not to be added to the Taittiriyaka because they have not been recited there as it is done in the course of the Purusha-Vidya in other branches.
But where only the rejection of virtue and vice is spoken of, the reception of these by others has to be inferred, on account of the term reception being a counter-correlative of rejection. And this is on the analogy of kusas, metres, praise and recitation, as has been explained (by Jaimini).
(A man of knowledge gets rid of virtue and vice) at the time of death, since nothing remains to be attained. For thus it is that others (ie., the followers of the other branches) state.
As there is no conflict between the two ( cause and effect) on the admission that destruction results from voluntary effort, (therefore such effort must take place before death).
This (differentiation) is reasonable, for facts indicative of a soul's journey are met with (in the case of meditation on the qualified Brahman alone), just as (much as such a difference is) met with in common life.
(The journey of the souls along the path of the gods is) not restricted (to any particular meditation). It applies to all meditations (on the qualified Brahman). This involves no contradiction as is known from Upanishadic and Smriti texts
All the (negative) conceptions of the Immutable are to be combined, since the process of presentation is similar and the object dealt with is the same. This is just as it is in the case of the Upasad sacrifice, as has been shown by Jaimini.
The conceptions (in the Mundaka and Svetasvatara on the one hand and Katha on the other) are the same, on account of the mention of a particular limit.
ॐ antara bhutagramavaditi cet taduktam ॐ || 3.3.36||
(The conception of the Self is the same in Brihadaranyaka,, since) one's own Self is declared to be the inmost of all as in the case of the aggregate of elements.
If it be argued that unless difference be admitted the separate statements become illogical, the reply is that this is not so, for it can be like another instruction of this kind
ॐ kamaditaratra tatra ca ayatanadibhyah ॐ || 3.3.40||
Traits like (true) desire etc., (mentioned in the Chandogya) are to be added to the other (Brihadaranyaka) and those mentioned there are to be added here, because of the sameness of abode.
There is no obligatory rule about that (ie., the meditations becoming connected always with rites), for that is obvious from the Upanishad, inasmuch as a meditation has a separate result, consisting in the elimination of hindrance to a rite.
The fires (of the mind, speech, etc., of Agni-rahasya) do not form parts of any rite, on account of the abundance of indicatory marks; for these marks are stronger than the context. That also was said by Jaimini.
On the strength of the context, the conceptual fires are to be used alternatively for the actual fire enjoined earlier. They constitute some rite like the imaginary drinking (of Soma juice).
On account of being linked up with the mind and such other reasons, the mental fires are independent even as other meditations are. And it is seen that the sacrifices are treated as independent (irrespective of their context), as was pointed out by Jaimini
ॐ न सामान्यादप्युपलब्धेर्मृत्युवन्नहि लोकापत्तिः ॐ ॥ ३.३.५३॥
ॐ na samanyadapyupalabdhermrtyuvannahi lokapattih ॐ || 3.3.53||
Not even on the ground of similarity can the mental fires become subservient to rites, since they are noticed to serve human needs, just as it is in the case of death; for the world does not become fire just because of a similarity.
ॐ परेण च शब्दस्य ताद्विध्यं भूयस्त्वात्त्वनुबन्धः ॐ ॥ ३.३.५४॥
ॐ parena ca sabdasya tadvidhyam bhuyastvattvanubandhah ॐ || 3.3.54||
From the subsequent Brahmana text also it is known that the scripture has that (prescription of a meditation) in view; but the connection with fire occurs because of the abundance of the attributes of fire that have to be imagined here.
But this is not so; there is a distinction (between the soul and the body) because consciousness may not exist even when the body exists, as it is in the case of perception.
ॐ अङ्गावबद्धास्तु न शाखासु हि प्रतिवेदम् ॐ ॥ ३.३.५७॥
ॐ aṅgavabaddhastu na sakhasu hi prativedam ॐ || 3.3.57||
But the meditations connected with the accessories of rites are not to be confined to the branches of the Vedas in which they obtain, for they are to be adopted in all the (branches of the) Vedas.
ॐ काम्यास्तु यथाकामं समुच्चीयेरन्न वा पूर्वहेत्वभावात् ॐ ॥ ३.३.६२॥
ॐ kamyastu yathakamam samucciyeranna va purvahetvabhavat ॐ || 3.3.62||
As for the meditations (based on symbols and) undertaken for fulfilment of worldly desires, they may be either combined or not combined according to one's option, since the previous reason (of sameness of result) does not exist.