{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe34/sbe34029.htm","path":"hin/sbe34/sbe34029.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34029.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras, commentary by Sankaracharya (SBE34), tr. by George Thibaut [1890]\n23. For the same reason breath (is Brahman).\nConcerning the udg\u00eetha it is said (Kh. Up. I, 10, 9), 'Prastotri, that deity which belongs to the prast\u00e2va, &c.,' and, further on (I,11,4; 5), 'Which then is that deity? He said: Breath. For all these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise. This is the deity belonging to the prast\u00e2va.' With reference to this passage doubt and decision are to be considered as analogous to those stated under the preceding S\u00fbtra. For while in some passages--as, for instance, 'For indeed, my son, mind is fastened to pr\u00e2na,' Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2; and, 'the pr\u00e2na of pr\u00e2na,' Bri. Up. IV, 4, 18--the word 'breath' is seen to denote Brahman, its use\nin the sense of a certain modification of air is better established in common as well as in Vedic language. Hence there arises a doubt whether in the passage under discussion the word pr\u00e2na denotes Brahman or (ordinary) breath. In favour of which meaning have we then to decide?\nHere the p\u00fbrvapakshin maintains that the word must be held to denote the fivefold vital breath, which is a peculiar modification of wind (or air); because, as has been remarked already, that sense of the word pr\u00e2na is the better established one.--But no, an objector will say, just as in the case of the preceding S\u00fbtra, so here also Brahman is meant, on account of characteristic marks being mentioned; for here also a complementary passage gives us to understand that all beings spring from and merge into pr\u00e2na; a process which can take place in connexion with the highest Lord only.--This objection, the p\u00fbrvapakshin replies, is futile, since we see that the beings enter into and proceed from the principal vital air also. For Scripture makes the following statement (Sat. Br. X, 3, 3, 6), 'When man sleeps, then into breath indeed speech merges, into breath the eye, into breath the ear, into breath the mind; when he awakes then they spring again from breath alone.' What the Veda here states is, moreover, a matter of observation, for during sleep, while the process of breathing goes on uninterruptedly, the activity of the sense organs is interrupted and again becomes manifest at the time of awaking only. And as the sense organs are the essence of all material beings, the complementary passage which speaks of the merging and emerging of the beings can be reconciled with the principal vital air also. Moreover, subsequently to pr\u00e2na being mentioned as the divinity of the prast\u00e2va the sun and food are designated as the divinities of the udg\u00eetha and the pratih\u00e2ra. Now as they are not Brahman, the pr\u00e2na also, by parity of reasoning, cannot be Brahman.\nTo this argumentation the author of the S\u00fbtras replies: For the same reason pr\u00e2na--that means: on account of the presence of characteristic marks--which constituted the reason stated in the preceding S\u00fbtra--the word pr\u00e2na also\nmust be held to denote Brahman. For Scripture says of pr\u00e2na also, that it is connected with marks characteristic of Brahman. The sentence, 'All these beings merge into breath alone, and from breath they arise,' which declares that the origination and retractation of all beings depend on pr\u00e2na, clearly shows pr\u00e2na to be Brahman. In reply to the assertion that the origination and retractation of all beings can be reconciled equally well with the assumption of pr\u00e2na denoting the chief vital air, because origination and retractation take place in the state of waking and of sleep also, we remark that in those two states only the senses are merged into, and emerge from, the chief vital air, while, according to the scriptural passage, 'For all these beings, &c.,' all beings whatever into which a living Self has entered, together with their senses and bodies, merge and emerge by turns. And even if the word 'beings' were taken (not in the sense of animated beings, but) in the sense of material elements in general, there would be nothing in the way of interpreting the passage as referring to Brahman.--But. it may be said, that the senses together with their objects do, during sleep, enter into pr\u00e2na, and again issue from it at the time of waking, we distinctly learn from another scriptural passage, viz. Kau. Up. III, 3, 'When a man being thus asleep sees no dream whatever, he becomes one with that pr\u00e2na alone. Then speech goes to him with all names,' &c.--True, we reply, but there also the word pr\u00e2na denotes (not the vital air) but Brahman, as we conclude from characteristic marks of Brahman being mentioned. The objection, again, that the word pr\u00e2na cannot denote Brahman because it occurs in proximity to the words 'food' and 'sun' (which do not refer to Brahman), is altogether baseless; for proximity is of no avail against the force of the complementary passage which intimates that pr\u00e2na is Brahman. That argument, finally, which rests on the fact that the word pr\u00e2na commonly denotes the vital air with its five modifications, is to be refuted in the same way as the parallel argument which the p\u00fbrvapakshin brought forward with reference to the word 'ether.' From all this it follows that the pr\u00e2na, which is the deity of the prast\u00e2va, is Brahman.\nSome (commentators) 1 quote under the present S\u00fbtra the following passages, 'the pr\u00e2na of pr\u00e2na' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 18), and 'for to pr\u00e2na mind is fastened' (Kh. Up. VI, 8, 2). But that is wrong since these two passages offer no opportunity for any discussion, the former on account of the separation of the words, the latter on account of the general topic. When we meet with a phrase such as 'the father of the father' we understand at once that the genitive denotes a father different from the father denoted by the nominative. Analogously we infer from the separation of words contained in the phrase, 'the breath of breath,' that the 'breath of breath' is different from the ordinary breath (denoted by the genitive 'of breath'). For one and the same thing cannot, by means of a genitive, be predicated of--and thus distinguished from--itself. Concerning the second passage we remark that, if the matter constituting the general topic of some chapter is referred to in that chapter under a different name, we yet conclude, from the general topic, that that special matter is meant. For instance, when we meet in the section which treats of the gyotishtoma sacrifice with the passage, 'in every spring he is to offer the gyotis sacrifice,' we at once understand that the word denotes the gyotishtoma. If we therefore meet with the clause 'to pr\u00e2na mind is fastened' in a section of which the highest Brahman is the topic, we do not for a moment suppose that the word pr\u00e2na should there denote the ordinary breath which is a mere modification of air. The two passages thus do not offer any matter for discussion, and hence do not furnish appropriate instances for the S\u00fbtra. We have shown, on the other hand, that the passage about the pr\u00e2na, which is the deity of the prast\u00e2va, allows room for doubt, p\u00fbrvapaksha and final decision.\n87:1 The vrittik\u00e2ra, the commentators say.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras, Sankaracharya, comm.: First Adhy&acir...","type":"page"}