Here the purvapakshin maintains that the pranas are in reality seven in number, on account of understanding, i. e. because they are understood to be so many, from passages such as c The seven pranas spring from him/ &c. These seven pranas are moreover specified in the other passage quoted above, ‘ Seven indeed are the pranas of the head.’ —But in the same passage we meet with the following reiteration, ‘ Resting in the cave they are placed there seven and seven/ which intimates that there are pr&zzas in addition to the seven.—No matter, we reply; that reiteration is made with reference to the plurality of men, and means that each man has seven pranas; it does not mean that there are two sets of seven prazzas each of different nature. —But, another objection will be raised, other scriptural passages speak of the prazzas as eight in number; how then should they be seven?—True, we reply, the number of eight also is stated; but on account of the contradictory nature of the statements we have to decide in favour of either of the two numbers; hence we decide in favour of the number seven, in deference to the (simpler) assumption of a low number, and consider the statements of other numbers to refer to the difference of modifications (of the fundamental seven prazzas).—To this argumentation the next Sutra replies.
6. But (there are also, in addition to the seven pranas mentioned,) the hands and so on. This being a settled matter, therefore (we must) not (conclude) thus (viz. that there are seven pra/zas only).
In addition to the seven prazzas scripture mentions other pra/zas also, such as the hands, &c., ‘ The hand is one graha and that is seized by work as the atigraha; for with the hands one does work’ (Bri. Up. Ill, 2, 8), and similar pas¬ sages. And as it is settled that there are more than seven, the number seven may be explained as being contained within the greater number. For wherever there is a conflict between a higher and a lower number, the higher number has to be accepted because the lower one is contained within it; while the higher is not contained within the lower. We therefore must not conclude that, in deference to the lower II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 6.
81 number, seven pranas have to be assumed, but rather that there are eleven prazzas, in deference to the higher number. This conclusion is confirmed by one of the passages quoted, ‘ Ten are these prazzas in man, and Atman is the eleventh.’ By the word Atman we have to understand the internal organ, on account of its ruling over the organs. Should it be objected that scripture also mentions numbers higher than eleven, viz. twelve and thirteen, we admit that, but remark that there are no objective effects in addition to the eleven (well-known) objective effects on account of which additional organs would have to be assumed. There are five distinctions of buddhi having for their respective objects sound, touch, colour, taste, and smell, and on their account there are the five intellectual organs; again there are five classes of action, viz. speaking, taking, going, evacuation, and begetting, and on their account there are the five organs of action; finally there is the manas which has all things for its objects and extends to the past, the present, and the future; it is one only but has various functions. On account of the plurality of its functions we find it designated by different terms in different places, as manas or buddhi or ahazzzkara or £itta. Thus scripture also after having enu¬ merated the various functions such as desire, &c., says at the end, ‘Allthis is manas only.’—That passage again which speaks of the prazzas of the head as seven means four prazzas only, which on account of the plurality of their places may be counted as seven; viz. the two ears, the two eyes, the two nostrils, and speech.—Nor can it be maintained that there are in reality only so many (i.e. seven), the other prazzas being mere functions of the seven; for the functions of the hands and so on are absolutely different (from the functions of the seven senses admitted by the purvapakshin). —Again, in the passage ‘ Nine prazzas indeed are in man, the navel is the tenth,’ the expression ‘ ten prazzas ’ is used to denote the different openings of the human body, not the difference of nature of the prazzas, as we conclude from the navel being mentioned as the eleventh. For no prazza is known that bears the name of navel; but the navel as being one of the special abodes of the chief prazza is here enu- [33] G 82 vedanta-s6tras.
merated as a tenth prazza.—In some places so and so many are counted for the purpose of meditation; in other places so and so many for the purpose of illustration h As the statements concerning the number of the pranas are of so varying a nature we must therefore distinguish in each case what the object of the statement is. Meanwhile it remains a settled conclusion that that statement which makes the pranas to be eleven is authoritative, on account of the objective effects (being eleven also).
The two Sutras (referring to the number of the prazzas) may be construed in the following manner also. The prazzas are seven because scripture mentions the going (gati) of seven only, ‘ When he thus departs life departs after him, and when life thus departs all the other pr&zzas 1 2 * depart after it 5 (B ri. Up. IV, 4, 2).—But, it may be objected, this passage says c all the other prazzas;’ how then does it declare the going of seven only?—The Sutra replies, ‘ on account of their being specified/ Seven senses only, from seeing up to feeling, are specified there because so many only are under discussion; as we see from the enumeration given in the passage, ‘ When that person in the eye turns away then he ceases to know any forms. He has become one they say, he does not see’ &c. The word ‘ all ’ refers here only to what is under discussion, i.e. only to the seven prazzas mentioned before, not to any other. Analogously when we say ‘ all the Brahmazzas have been fed/ we mean only those Brahmazzas who have been invited and concern us at the time, not any other.—If it be objected that the passage quoted mentions understanding (vi^ana) as the eighth thing departing, and that we therefore have no right to speak of the departing of seven only, we reply that manas and understanding differ not in essential nature but only in function, and that on this account we are entitled to speak of seven prazzas only.—The answer to this 1 Sapta pra n&h prabhavantity ader gatim aha kva^id iti, ash/au graha ityader gatizzz sfi^ayati gatim iti. An. Gi.
2 I.e. seeing, smelling, tasting, speaking, hearing, feeling, and the manas.
ii adhyAya, 4 pAda, 6.
83 purvapaksha is as follows.— In addition to the severe senses, other pranas also, such as the hands, are known to exist, as we see from such passages as ‘ The hands are one graha/ &c. (B ri. Up. Ill, 2, 8). By their being a graha (seizer) is meant that they are bonds by which the indivi¬ dual soul (kshetra^vza) is tied. Now the individual soul is tied not in one body only, but is equally tied in other bodies also. Hence it follows that that bond called graha (i.e. among other things the hands) moves over into other bodies also. Smrz'ti also (‘ He—the Self—is joined with the aggre¬ gate of eight, comprising breath, &c. 1, as his mark; his bondage consists in being bound by it, his release in being freed from it’) shows that the Self is, previous to final release, not freed from the bonds called grahas. And also in the enumeration of the senses and their objects given by the Atharvazza Upanishad (‘ The eye and what can be seen,’ &c., Pr. Up. IV, 8), the organs of action such as the hands and so on, together with their objects, are specified as well,‘the hands and what can be grasped; the member and what can be delighted; the anus and what can be evacuated; the feet and what can be walked/ Moreover the passage, ‘ These ten vital breaths and atman as the eleventh; when they depart from this mortal body they make us cry’ (B ri. Up. Ill, 9,4), shows that eleven prazzas depart from the body. —Moreover the word c all ’ (which occurs in the passage, Bri. Up. IV, 4,2) must, because connected with the word ‘pranas/ denote all pr&zzas, and cannot, on the ground of general sub¬ ject-matter, be limited to the seven pranas; for a direct state¬ ment has greater force than the subject-matter. Even in the analogous sentence, ‘all Brahmazzas have been fed/ we have, on the ground of the words, to understand all Brahmazzas living on the earth; but because it is impossible to feed all Brahmazzas in the latter sense, we accept that meaning of 1 The eightfold aggregate of which the Self is freed in final release only comprises the five pranas (vital airs), the pentad of the five subtle elements, the pentad of the organs of intellect, the pentad of the organs of action, the tetrad of internal organs (manas, &c.), avidya, desire (kama), and karman.
‘all/ according to which it denotes all invited Brahmazzas. In our case on the other hand there is no reason whatever for narrowing the meaning of ‘ all.’—Hence the word £ all ’ includes all pranas without exception. Nothing on the other hand prevents the enumeration of seven prazzas being taken as illustrative only. It is therefore an established conclusion, resting on the number of the effects as well as on Vedic statement, that there are eleven pranas.
7. And (they are) minute.
The author of the Sutras adds another characteristic quality of the pranas. The pranas under discussion must be viewed as minute. By their minuteness we have to understand subtilty and limited size; but not atomic size, as otherwise they would be incapable of producing effects which extend over the whole body. They must be subtle; for if they were big the persons surrounding a dying man would see them coming out from the body at the moment of death, as a snake comes out of its hole. They must be limited; for if they were all-pervading the scriptural statements as to their passing out of the body, going and coming, would be contradicted thereby, and it could not be established that the individual soul is c the essence of the qualities of that ’ (i. e. the manas; cp. II, 3, 29). Should it be said that they may be all-pervading, but at the same time appear as functions [vri tti) in the body only, we rejoin that only a function can constitute an instru¬ ment. Whatever effects perception, may it be a function or something else, just that is an instrument for us. The disagreement is therefore about a name only, and the assumption of the instruments (pranas) being all-pervading is thus purposeless.—Hence we decide that the pranas are subtle and of limited size.
8. And the best (i.e. the chief vital air).
The Sutra extends to the chief vital air (mukhya prazza) a quality already asserted of the other prazzas, viz. being an effect of Brahman.—But, an objection may be raised, it has already been stated of all prazzas without difference that they are effects of Brahman; e. g. the passage, c From him II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 9.
85 is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense’ (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3), states the origin of prazza separately from the senses and the manas; and there are other passages also such as ‘ He sent forth prazza ’ (Pr. Up. VI, 4). Why then the formal extension?—We reply: For the purpose of re¬ moving further doubt. For in the Nasadiya-sukta whose subject is Brahman there occurs the following mantra: ‘There was neither death nor the Immortal; nor mani¬ festation of either night or day. By its own law the One was breathing without wind; there was nothing differ¬ ent from that or higher than it 5 (Hi. Sazzzh. X, 129, 2). Here the words, ‘was breathing,’ which denote the proper function of breath, intimate that breath existed as it were before the creation. And therefrom it might be concluded that prazza is not produced; an idea which the Sutrak&ra discards by the formal extension (to prazza of the quality of having originated from Brahman).—Moreover the word ‘ breathed ’ does not intimate that prazza existed before the creation; for in the first place it is qualified by the addition ‘without wind,’ and in the second place scriptural passages—such as ‘ He is without breath, without mind, pure’ (Mu. Up. II, I, 2)—declare expressly that the causal substance is without any qualifications such as prazza and so on. Hence the word ‘breathed’ has merely the purpose of setting forth the existence of the cause.— The term ‘the best’ (employed in the Sutra) denotes the chief vital air, according to the declaration of scripture, ‘ Breath indeed is the oldest and the best ’ (Kh. Up. V, 1,1). The breath is the oldest because it begins its function from the moment when the child is conceived; the senses of hearing, &c., on the other hand, begin to act only when their special seats, viz. the ears, &c., are formed, and they are thus not ‘the oldest.’ The designation ‘the best’ belongs to the prazza on account of its superior qualities and on account of the passage, ‘We shall not be able to live without thee’ (B ri. Up. VI, 1, 13).
9. (The chief prazza is) neither air nor function, on account of its being mentioned separately.
86 vedanta-sOtras.
An inquiry is now started concerning the nature of that chief prazza.—The purvapakshin maintains that the prazza is, according to.Sruti, nothing but air. For 5 ruti says, ‘ Breath is air; that air assuming five forms is prazza, apana, vyana, udana, samana.’—Or else the purvapaksha may be formulated according to the view of another philosophical doctrine, and prdzza may be considered as the combined function of all organs. For so the followers of another doctrine (viz. the Sankhyas) teach, ‘The five airs, pra/za,&c., are the common function of the instruments 1.’
To this we reply that the prazza is neither air nor the function of an organ; for it is mentioned separately. From air prazza is distinguished in the following passage, ‘ Breath indeed is the fourth foot of Brahman. That foot shines as Agni with its light and warms. 5 If prazza were mere air, it would not be mentioned separately from air.— Thus it is also mentioned separately from the functions of the organs; for the texts enumerate speech and the other organs and mention prazza separately from them, and the function and that to which the function belongs (the organ) are identical. If it were a mere function of an organ, it would not be mentioned separately from the organs. Other passages also in which the prazza is mentioned separately from air and the organs are here to be con¬ sidered so, e.g. ‘From him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense, ether, air,’ &c. (Mu. Up. II, i, 3). Nor is it possible that all the organs together should have one func¬ tion (and that that function should be the pr&zza); for each organ has its own special function and the aggregate of them has no active power of its own.—But—an objection may be raised—the thing may take place in the manner of the moving bird-cage. Just as eleven birds shut up in one cage may, although each makes a separate effort, move the cage by the combination of their efforts; so the eleven 1 Sankhya Su. II, 31; where, however, the reading is ‘ samanya- karazzavz'z'tti^/ explained by the Comm, as sadharazzi karazzasya anta^- karazzatrayasya \rill\h parizzamabheda iti. *Sankara, on the other hand, understands by karazza the eleven prazzas discussed previously.
II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 9.
87 pr&zzas which abide in one body may, although each has its own special function, by the combination of these functions, produce one common function called prazza.— This objection, we reply, is without force. The birds indeed may, by means of their separate subordinate efforts, which all favour the movement of the cage, move the cage by combination; that is a matter of observation. But we have no right to assume that the different pranas with their subordinate functions such as hearing &c. can, by combination, produce the function of vital breath; for there is no means to prove this, and the vital breath is in kind absolutely different from hearing and so on.—More¬ over, if the vital breath were the mere function of an organ (or the organs) it could not be glorified as the c best/ and speech and so on could not be represented as subordinate to it. Hence the vital breath is different from air and the functions (of the organs).—How then have we to under¬ stand the scriptural passage, ‘ The pr&zza is air/ &c.?— The air, we reply, passing into the adhyatma-state, dividing itself fivefold and thus abiding in a specialized condition is called prazza. It therefore is neither a different being nor is it mere air. Hence there is room for those passages as well which identify it with air as those which do not.— Well, let this be granted. The prazza then also must be considered to be independent in this body like the individual soul, as scripture declares it to be the ‘best* and the organs such as speech, &c., to be subordinate to it. For various powers are ascribed to it in scriptural passages.
It is said, for instance, that when speech and the other (organs) are asleep the prazza alone is awake; that the pr&zza alone is not reached by death; that the prazza is the absorber, it absorbs speech, &c.; that the prazza guards the other senses (prazzas) as a mother her sons 1. Hence it follows that the prazza is independent in the same way as the individual soul.—This view is impugned in the next j Sutra. * 1 Cp. Ka. Up. II, 5, 8; Bn. Up. I, 5, 21; Kh. Up. IV, 3, 3; Pr. Up. II, 13.
88 vedanta-sOtras.
10. But (the prd/za is subordinate to the soul) like the eye, &c., on account of being taught with them (the eye, &c.), and for other reasons.
The word c but ’ sets aside the independence of the prawa. As the eye and so on stand, like the subjects of a king, in mere subordinate relation to the acting and enjoyingof the soul and are not independent, so the chief vital air also, occupying a position analogous to that of a kings minister, stands in an entirely subordinate relation to the soul and is not independent.—Why?—Because it is taught (spoken of) together with them, i. e. the eye and the other organs, in such passages as the colloquy of the pr&zzas, &c. For to be mentioned together is appropriate only in the case of things with the same attributes, as e. g. the Brzhat- saman and the Rathantara-saman h The words ‘and so on’ (in the Sutra) indicate other reasons refuting the independence of the pra/za, such as its being composed of parts, its being of a non-intelligent nature and the like.— Well, but if it be admitted that the pr&/za stands to the soul in the relation of an instrument as the eye and so on, it will follow that we must assume another sense-object analogous to colour and so on. For the eyes, &c., occupy their specific subordinate position with regard to the soul through their functions which consist in the seeing of colour and so on. Now we can enumerate only eleven classes of functions, viz. the seeing of colour and so on, on whose account we assume eleven different pranas, and there is no twelfth class of effects on account of which a twelfth prazza could be assumed.—To this objection the following Sutra replies.
ii. And on account of (its) not being an instru¬ ment the objection is not (valid); for thus (scripture) declares.
The objection urged, viz. that there would result another sense-object, is not valid; because the prazza is not an 1 Which go together because they are both samans.
II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 12.
89 instrument. For we do not assume that the prazza is, like the eye, an organ because it determines a special sense- object. Nor is it on that account devoid of an effect; since scripture declares that the chief vital air has a specific effect which cannot belong to the other prazzas. For in the so-called colloquies of the prazzas we read in the be¬ ginning, ‘The prazzas quarrelled together who was best;’ after that we read, ‘ He by whose departure the body seems worse than worst, he is the best of you; ’ thereupon the text, after showing how, on the successive departure of speech and so on, the life of the body, although deprived of one particular function, went on as before, finally relates that as soon as the chief prazza was about to depart all other prazzas became loosened and the body was about to perish; which shows that the body and all the senses sub¬ sist by means of the chief prazza. The same thing is de¬ clared by another passage, ‘ Then pr&zza as the best said to them: Be not deceived; I alone dividing myself fivefold support this body and keep it’ (Pr. Up. II, 3). Another passage, viz. ‘ With prazza guarding the lower nest ’ (B ri. Up. IV, 3, 12), shows that the guarding of the body depends on prazza. Again, two other passages show that the nourish^ ing of the body depends on prazza, ‘ From whatever limb prazza goes away that limb withers 5 (Bz^z. Up. I, 3, 19), and ‘ What we eat and drink with it supports the other vital breaths.’ And another passage declares that the soul’s departing and staying depend on prazza, ‘ What is it by whose departure I shall depart, and by whose staying I shall stay?—The created prazza' (Pr. Up. VI, 3; 4).
12. It is designated as having five functions like mind.
The chief vital air has its specific effect for that reason also that in scripture it is designated as having five functions, prazza, apana, vyana, udana, samana. This dis¬ tinction of functions is based on a distinction of effects. Pr&zza is the forward-function whose work is aspiration, &c.; apana is the backward-function whose work is inspiration, &c.; vyana is that which, abiding in the junction of the two, 90 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
is the cause of works of strength 1; udana is the ascending function and is the cause of the passing out (of the soul); samana is the function which conveys the juices of the food equally through all the limbs of the body. J Thus the pra;za has five functions just as the mind (manas) has. The five functions of the mind are the five well-known ones caused by the ear, &c., and having sound and so on for their objects. By the functions of the mind we cannot here understand those enumerated (in Bri. Up. I, 5, 3), 'desire, representation/ &c., because those are more than five.—But on the former explanation also there exists yet another function of the mind which does not depend on the ear, &c., but has for its object the past, the future, and so on; so that on that explanation also the number five is exceeded.—Well, let us then follow the principle that the opinions of other (systems) if unobjectionable may be adopted, and let us assume that the five functions of the manas are those five which are known from the Yoga^istra, viz. right knowledge, error, imagination, slumber, and re¬ membrance. Or else let us assume that the Sutra quotes the manas as an analogous instance merely with reference to the plurality (not the fivefoldness) of its functions.— In any case the Sutra must be construed to mean that the prana’s subordinate position with regard to the soul follows from its having five functions like the manas.
13. And it is minute.
And the chief vital air is to be considered as minute like the other pranas.—Here also we have to understand by minuteness that the chief vital air is subtle and of limited size, not that is of atomic size; for by means of its five functions it pervades the entire body. It must be viewed as subtle because when passing out of the body it is not perceived by a bystander, and as limited because scripture speaks of its passing out, going and coming.—But, it may be said, scripture speaks also of its all-pervadingness; so, 1 Viz. the holding in of the breath; cp. Kh. Up. I, 3, 3-5.
II ADHYAYA, 4 PADA, 14.
91 e. g. ‘ He is equal to a grub, equal to a gnat, equal to an elephant, equal to these three worlds, equal to this Universe’ (B ri. Up. I, 3, 22 ).—To this we reply that the all-pervadingness of which this text speaks belongs to the Self of the prana, in its adhidaivata relation, according to which it appears as Hirazzyagarbha in his double—universal and individual—form, not in its adhyatma relation. More¬ over the statements of equality ‘equal to a grub/ &c., just declare the limited size of the prazza which abides within every living being.—Thus there remains no difficulty.
14. But there is guidance (of the pr&zzas) by fire, &c., on account of that being declared by scripture.
Here there arises a discussion whether the prazzas of which we have been treating are able to produce their effects by their own power or only in so far as guided by divinities.—The purvapakshin maintains that the prazzas being endowed with the capacity of producing their effects act from their own power. If we, moreover, admitted that the prazzas act only in so far as guided by divinities, it would follow that those guiding divinities are the enjoyers (of the fruits of the actions), and the individual soul would thus cease to be an enjoyer. Hence the prazzas act from their own power.—To this we reply as follows. ‘ But there takes place guidance by fire/ &c.—The word ‘ but 5 excludes the purvapaksha. The different classes of organs, speech, &c., the Sutra says, enter on their peculiar activities, guided by the divinities animating fire, and so on. The words, ‘ on account of that being declared by scripture/ state the reason. For different passages declare this, cp. Ait. Ar. II, 4, 2, 4, ‘ Agni having become speech entered the mouth/ This statement about Agni (fire) becoming speech and entering the mouth is made on the assumption of Agni acting as a ruler with his divine Self (not as a mere element). For if we abstract from the connexion with the divinity we do not see that there is any special con¬ nexion of fire either with speech or the mouth. The sub¬ sequent passages, c Vayu having become breath entered into the nostrils/ &c., are to be explained in the same way.
92 vedAnta-s^tras.