{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe38/sbe38071.htm","path":"hin/sbe38/sbe38071.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38071.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana, Commentary by Sankara (SBE38), tr. by George Thibaut [1896]\n17. They (the pr\u00e2nas) are senses, on account of being so designated, with the exception of the best (the mukhya pr\u00e2na).\nWe have treated of the mukhya pr\u00e2na and the other\neleven pr\u00e2nas in due order.--Now there arises another doubt, viz. whether the other pr\u00e2nas are functions of the mukhya pr\u00e2na or different beings.--The p\u00fbrvapakshin that they are mere functions, on account of scriptural statement. For scripture, after having spoken of the chief pr\u00e2na and the other pr\u00e2nas in proximity, declares that those other pr\u00e2nas have their Self in the chief pr\u00e2na, 'Well, let us all assume his form. Thereupon they all assumed his form' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 2l).--Their unity is moreover ascertained from the unity of the term applied to them, viz. pr\u00e2na. Otherwise there either would result the objectionable circumstance of one word having different senses, or else the word would in some places have to be taken in its primary sense, in others in a derived sense. Hence, as pr\u00e2na, ap\u00e2na, &c. are the five functions of the one chief pr\u00e2na, so the eleven pr\u00e2nas also which begin with speech are mere functions of the chief pr\u00e2na.--To this we reply as follows. Speech and so on are beings different from the chief pr\u00e2na, on account of the difference of designation.--Which is that difference of designation?--The eleven pr\u00e2nas remaining if we abstract from the best one, i.e. the chief pr\u00e2na, are called the sense-organs (indriya), as we see them designated in Sruti, 'from him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense' (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3). In this and other passages pr\u00e2na and the sense-organs are mentioned separately.--But in that case the mind also would have to be excluded from the class of sense-organs, like the pr\u00e2na; as we see that like the latter it is separately mentioned in the passage, 'The mind and all organs of sense.' True; but in Smriti eleven sense-organs are mentioned, and on that account the mind must, like the ear, and so on, be comprised in the sense-organs. That the pr\u00e2na on the other hand is a sense-organ is known neither from Smriti nor Sruti.--Now this difference of designation is appropriate only if there is difference of being. If there were unity of being it would be contradictory that the pr\u00e2na although one should sometimes be designated as sense--organ and sometimes not. Consequently the other pr\u00e2nas are different in being from the chief pr\u00e2na.--For this conclusion the following S\u00fbtra states an additional reason.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana: Second Adhy\u00e2ya. Fourth P\u00e2da.: II, 4, 17","type":"page"}