The Philosophy of the Upanishads c11.s2.t4.7.2

c11.s2.t4.7.2

My reason was, that there existed here something in the background which exercised possibly a stronger attraction on the author or redactor of the passage than analogy or consistency, viz.—the wish to join prâṇa and apâna together here also as *graha* and *atigraha* in accordance with their usual association. *Apâna* therefore, inspiration as the vehicle of smell, represented the latter, and the explanatory addition (*apânena hi gandham* jighrati) was employed in order to justify the connnection, not as before and usually between graha and atigraha, but between atigraha and the object which it represented. That apâna being inspiration, prâna by its side (in its general meaning of "breath") could not at the same time denote the sense of smell, as so often elsewhere, would therefore be overlooked. That the original author of the paragraph caused this confusion, I find myself unable to believe; but the mistake, if we must so call it, is older than the separation of the Kânvas and Mâdhyandinas, and therefore not much less than three thousand years old,¹ and certainly would not have maintained its ground all this time if apâna had not already at that period denoted the faculty of smell, and therefore inspiration. The same conclusion follows from the symbolical treatment in Br̥ih. 6. 4. 10–11, where the direction is given, if unfruitfulness is desired, abhiprânya apânyât, if fruitfulness, apânya abhiprânyât.