Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c8.s6: XXVII. The Organs of the Soul

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c8.s6

Language
English

Contents

XXVII. The Organs of the Soul

1. Preliminary Survey

c8.s6.t1.1

REGARDED from the standpoint of knowledge the soul is Brahman Himself and completely identical (*ananya*) with Him. The plurality of souls is illusory; each one of us is the whole, undivided Brahman; as such each is infinite, omnipresent, all-pervading, eternal and changeless, omnipotent and omniscient; without differences and without organs, neither agent nor enjoyer, neither sinning nor suffering, in his essence pure intelligence (*caitanyam*), an organless, objectless, painless, pure cognition. As such the soul is in us merely an onlooker (*sâkshin*) who in all cognition, present as its innermost nucleus looks on idly at worldly action and at its illusions without being in the least mixed up in it: *sa, yat tatra kiñcit paçyati, an-anvâgatas tena bhavati; asaṅgo hi ayaṃ puruṣaḥ* (Brih. 4, 3, 16).

c8.s6.t1.2

This is not so from the standpoint of Ignorance. For just as a man whose eyes are affected sees two moons where there is in reality only one—or as the sun is reflected in the water in a thousand images, each of which is not a part but the whole of the sun, though in truth a mere phantom without real existence,—so the Ignorant sees instead of one Brahman without a second (which is his own Self) a plurality consisting of 1) a God (*īçvara*) whose office is that of dispensing retribution, 2) a world which is the scene of this retribution, and 3) a given number of souls subject to the limitations of individuality; they wander from eternity and in each new existence suffer retribution for the works of the previous life; for this purpose after each death a new body, corresponding exactly to the merits and faults of the previous life, arises out of the seed of the body with which the soul is inseparably connected; and this happens again and again without cessation during all eternity.—It is true these souls are in reality neither individual nor wandering; each one of them is on the contrary the *Âtman* (besides which nothing else exists), *i.e.*, the omniscient and omnipotent *Brahman* itself in his completeness. But the soul does not know that this is so, because it has not the proper knowledge of its own Self, in that its own nature is hidden from it. What prevents this self-knowledge, in which the soul is at once the perceiving subject and perceived object, is *Avidyâ*; *Avidyâ* puts itself between the soul as subject and the soul as object; and is sometimes characterised subjectively as defective intellectual force, sometimes objectively as defective perceptibility. The soul is from the subjective point of view compared to a blind man (above p. 87), whose lost sight can only be restored by the remedy of grace; objectively it is the *Upâdhis* by which the divine nature of the soul is disguised and as it were rendered latent like fire which slumbers hidden in the wood:

c8.s6.t1.3

(p. 787, 9:) "The omniscience and omnipotence of the soul is hidden by its connection with the body, *i.e.*, by the connection with body, senses, Manas, Buddhi, external objects and sensation. On this subject we have this simile: just as fire has as properties burning and illuminating; but the heat and light are hidden when the fire has entered into wood or is covered with ashes, in the same way through the connection of the soul with the *Upâdhis* such as body etc. which are created of Ignorance and formed of name and shape, arises the error of not distinguishing ourself from them [the *Upâdhis*] and this produces the concealment of the omniscience and omnipotence of the soul."

c8.s6.t1.4

These *Upâdhis* which condition the individualisation of the soul, are, taking these all in all, the following:

c8.s6.t1.5

I) The coarse body (*deha, sthûla-çarîram*) consisting of the elements; the soul casts it off at death.

c8.s6.t1.6

II) Among what accompanies the soul on its migration we distinguish:

c8.s6.t1.7

for he possesses all the necessary powers (*çakti* of which immediately) perfect within himself.

c8.s6.t1.8

It is true that milk etc. are unintelligent substances, and we see that beings with intelligence, like potters etc., call in the aid of instruments. Thus we may suppose it to be with Brahman, as he also is an intelligent being.—To this can be opposed the fact that gods also, and ancestors, and Rishis, who are certainly beings possessed of intelligence, through their own power, without external means, according to their innate sovereignty, and through meditation alone, creat many variously shaped bodies, palaces, carriages etc., as the Hymns and Brâhmaṇas as well as the epic and mythological works attest. Further, we must remember that the spider puts forth her thread from herself, that female cranes become fertilised without seed, and that lotus-flowers wander from one pond to another without outward means of transit. The applicability of these comparisons may be contested, because the gods accomplish their deeds only by taking bodily forms to aid them, and not by the spiritual Self alone, because the saliva of the spider, after it has been stiffened by eating smaller creatures, becomes threads, because the female cranes are fertilised⁹⁵ when they hear the voice of the thunder, because the lotus-flowers do not wander among the ponds by means of their unintelligent bodies, but precisely because they are endowed with intelligence, as climbing plants find their way to trees;—but to all this we can reply that the creatures named do not, like the potter, use [external instruments in

c8.s6.t1.9

⁹⁵ p. 477, 15: *balâkâ ca antareṇa eva çukram garbham dhatte*; p. 768 6: *balâkâ api antareṇa eva retaḥ-sekam garbham dhatte*, *iti loke rûḍhiḥ*; p. 478, 8: *balâkâ ca stanayitnu-rava-çravaṇâd garbham dhatte*. These indications may serve to clear up the passage *Meghadûta* v. 9, which, as appears from Stenzler's note on page 29, has hitherto been understood differently:

c8.s6.t1.10

*garbha-âdhâna-kṣaṇa-paricayân nûnam âbaddha-mâlâḥ*
*sevishyante nayana-subhagam khe bhavantam balâkâḥ*

c8.s6.t1.11

"Surely wilt thou [O Cloud], when thou floatest in the air, rejoicing the "eye, be honored by the female cranes in their serried ranks, because "they conclude (*colligunt*) [from thy arising] that the moment for receiv-"ing the fruits of the body [in the tempest] draws near."

c8.s6.t1.12

consisting of the systems of the conscious and unconscious life, which the soul (like a snail with its horns) puts out during life and at death withdraws into itself; the special enquiry is preceded by the question as to the origin and nature of the Prāṇas, i.e., of the whole psychic organism.

2. Origin and Nature of the Organs of Life (prāṇa)

c8.s6.t2.1

By organs of life (Prāṇas in the more extended sense) are to be understood in the present case: the five organs of action, the five senses, the Manas and the Mukhya Prāṇa with its five branches.

c8.s6.t2.2

Though this apparatus appears in strict and (except in liberation) inseparable connection with the soul, it does not belong to it all the same but to another non-spiritual part of nature. In the drama of world-development it does not belong to the player but the scenery; it is therefore in a similar position to the elements (earth, water, fire, air, ether) and appears in close connection with them; and if the metaphor is carried further one might say: the elements form the scenery (stage and wings) and the organs of life the costumes which the actors put on. For the rest, the idea of the Prāṇas is not clearly worked out; on the one hand they are the inseparable companions of the soul on its wanderings and therefore parcelled out individuals, on the other hand, as in what follows, they appear as a complex mass from which the soul draws its organs as it takes its body from the corresponding mass of the elements.

c8.s6.t2.3

The question as to the nature and origin of the Prāṇas is twice treated, 2, 3, 15 and 2, 4, 1—4 without our arriving at settled ideas in the matter; in the first passage (as we saw above chap. XVII, 3 p. 236) Çaṅkara is undecided whether the Prāṇas are to be regarded as of the same nature as, or as different from the elements; in the former case, he thinks, they must have originated (in the creation at the beginning of each Kalpa) at the same time as the elements, in the latter before and after them; at any rate it is certain, he says, that they, like the elements, have arisen from Brahman. — The verbose treatment which he deals out to our question in the others passage, 2, 4, 1—4, does not bring us much further, for the essential content of his explanation is limited to the following: the question is whether the Prāṇas had an origin or not (p. 701, 6), for passages can be cited in support of both assumptions (p. 701, 7. 702, 1); one may not however therefore take the origin of the Prāṇas in a figurative (*gauṇa*) sense (p. 702, 7); on the contrary they are sprung from Brahman just as much as the rest of the world (p. 703, 11), for the Scripture teaches this expressly (p. 704, 7). If on the other hand the Scripture (Çatapathabr. 6, 1, 1, 1) makes them exist before the origin [of the world], they are for all that not absolutely primordial in their nature (*mūla-prakṛiti*) but only relatively so (*avāntara-prakṛiti*) viz. with respect to what has originated in its turn from them (p. 706, 6). Whether their origin from the elements as taught Chānd. 6, 6, 5 (above p. 263) is to be taken literally or figuratively (p. 708, 5), it follows in any case from it that they like all else have arisen from Brahman (p. 708, 9).

c8.s6.t2.4

But this is in no way a satisfactory settlement of the question. For the Prāṇas exist, like the subtle body which carries them, as long as Saṃsāra endures (p. 1096, 11), and they accompany the soul inseparably even if it should enter a plant (p. 1096, 14), in which case Manas and Indriyas naturally cannot unfold themselves; now Saṃsāra exists, as we have seen many times already, from eternity; therefore the soul must have been equipped with the psychic organism of the Prāṇas from eternity too. Our author is everywhere only concerned to reconcile this eternal existence of the individual soul and its psychic apparatus with the entering into and origin from Brahman, taught by the Scripture of all that exists; this he does by making the soul continue in Brahman in the form of seed (*vīja-ātmanā*) or potentially (*çakti-ātmanā*) which makes its destruction and origin merely apparent;—but these Vedic apologetics have far less interest for us than the question as to the relation between the eyes and ears, hands and feet, etc., which wander forth with the soul and exist for ever, and the material parts of the body which bear these names and originate and perish with the body.—Çankara gives a hint to guide us in solving the question when he, as we shall see, declares repeatedly that the function (*vritti*), not the organ wanders forth with the soul; that therefore even when the organs of sight, hearing, moving and grasping perish at death, the capability (we might say the will) to see, hear, move and grasp, etc. persists with the soul (cf. the passage from Chând. above p. 185 ff.). We find no further information, but a solution of the question in conformity with the system is not lacking. In this matter we must regard as fundamental the view that the body is related to the psychic complex as the developed plant to its seed. Since everything originates only from its seed, the wandering soul must necessarily, besides the Prânas, take with it the seed of the gross body in the form of the "subtle body" which we shall examine more closely in the section on transmigration. As the material body is the bearer of the material sense-organs, so this subtle body is the bearer (*âçraya*) of the psychic organs. They must like the body be conceived as germs which, on entering into material existence, by drawing homogeneous corpuscules from the whole mass of Prâna-materials, develop into material organs, just as the seed of the subtle body absorbs the materials of the elements and ripens into the gross body.

3. The System of the conscious Life: Organs of Relation

c8.s6.t3.1

In accordance with the anatomical theory which makes the brain, as the central organ of conscious life, branch out on the one hand as sensory nerves into the organs of sense and on the other hand as motor nerves into the muscles of voluntary movement, we find the Indians conceive the existence of a central function, *Manas*, and two systems dependent on it; viz. the five organs of perception (*buddhi-indriyas*) and the five organs of action (*karma-indriyas*). In these eleven organs according to Çankara the whole complex of conscious life is included.—How many Prânas, he asks (p. 709, 1), must we assume if we leave out of account the *Mukhya Prâna* (the principle of unconscious life)? Their number is variously stated and passages may be cited which make them seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen in number (p. 709, 3—9). The right number is however eleven.

c8.s6.t3.2

For there are in the first place five classes of perception (*buddhi-bheda*), according as their object is sound, the object touched, form, taste or smell [as to the order cf. note 97, above p. 237]; to these correspond the five organs of perception (p. 711, 7). There are further five classes of action (*karma-bheda*), speaking, grasping, going, evacuating, and procreating; these purposes are served by the five organs of action (p. 711, 9).

c8.s6.t3.3

These external organs [which are limited to the present] have as correlative the inner organ (*antaḥkaraṇam*) or Manas (the two expressions are for Śaṅkara completely interchangeable cf. 711, 4. 21, 4. 666, 5) which extends (p. 711, 10) to past, present and future (p. 723, 9); "by division of the functions some distinguish Manas, Buddhi, Ahaṃkāra, Cittam" (p. 711, 11);—"this inner organ which serves the soul as Upādhi is here and there variously termed Manas, Buddhi, Vijñānam, Cittam; others even distinguish separate functions and term the faculty of reflection (*saṃcaya*, p. 340, 6 vikalpa) Manas, that of decision (*niścaya*, p. 340, 7 adhyavasāya) Buddhi" (p. 666, 7). Śaṅkara mentions these different views without refuting them but also without making use of them; for him there is only one inner organ, the Manas; and even the Buddhi is for him not a distinct faculty but sometimes the activity of perception, sometimes the mind in general (though it occasionally in connection with Kāṭh. 3, 3 appears coordinate with the Manas, p. 638, 11; cf. 263, 8. 389, 2. 265, 6. 787, 10. 1056, 1).—So too Ahaṃkāra is in our system not a distinct organ but means in the first place "the word I" (p. 157, 5), then as a synonym of Ahampratyaya "the idea of the Ego" "self-consciousness" (pp. 672, 1. 2. 680, 5. 6) whose object (*ahampratyaya-viṣaya*) is the individual soul (pp. 73, 5. 78, 6. 672, 1, while on the other hand p. 15, 2 asmat-pratyaya-viṣaya refers to the highest soul); as subject of presentation of the Ego sometimes the individual soul (*ahaṃkartar* p. 73, 5) is mentioned, sometimes the Manas (ahampratyayin p. 21, 5); the highest soul on the other hand is not subject of the Ahaṃkâra, for that involves activity; on the contrary, like all else, the Ahaṃkâra (with its perceiving subject and perceived object) is for the Upâdhi-less Soul simply an object of perception (p. 680, 6). Cf. above p. 321.

c8.s6.t3.4

As we have already seen (above p. 314) the necessity of the assumption of the Manas is deduced by Çaṅkara from the fact that while the soul is essentially an eternal cognition, there is no reason discoverable in the organs of sense for their different behaviour at different times; from this would result that we [in a waking state which alone comes in question here] should either not perceive at all or should perceive continuously, unless there were between the soul and the organs of sense the Manas, “by whose attention (avadhânam) and non-attention apperception (upalabdhi) and non-apperception [of the soul] results” (p. 667, 6).

c8.s6.t3.5

As the central organ of the organs of perception and action Manas is on the one hand what we term understanding, on the other hand conscious volition. The ideas on these objects are not however further developed. Çaṅkara contents himself instead (p. 667, 7, cf. p. 21, 4) with a reference to the unsystematic information in Bṛh. 1, 5, 3: “My mind was elsewhere (anyatra-manas), I did not see, my mind was elsewhere, I did not hear, so we say; for only with the mind does one see, only with the mind does one hear;¹¹⁵ kâma, saṃkalpa, vicikitsâ, çraddhâ, açraddhâ, dhṛiti, adhṛiti, hrî, dhî, bhî,—all these are Manas; therefore when we are touched from behind, we recognise the fact by the Manas.”—The faculties mentioned are explained by Çaṅkara on Bṛh. loc. cit. as follows: “kâma, desire, the longing for sexual enjoyment, etc.; saṃkalpa, decision, the determination of the character of a presented object by differences such as white, black, etc.; vicikitsâ, doubt; çraddhâ, belief, the perception of the existence of invisible objects, e.g. the gods, by their effects; açraddhâ, disbelief, the contrary; dhṛiti, steadiness, keeping oneself up- “right when the body is tired; *adhṛiti*, the opposite; *hrī*, “shame; *dhī*, cognition; *bhī*, fear.”

c8.s6.t3.6

¹¹⁵ Cf. Epicharmos in Plut. Mor. p. 961 A: Νοῦς ὁρῇ καὶ νοῦς ἀκούει, τἆλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά.

c8.s6.t3.7

The *Prāṇas* mentioned (*Manas*, *Buddhi-indriyas*, and *Karma-indriyas*) are minute (*aṇu*) which means that they are 1) subtle (*sūkshma*), 2) limited (*paricchinna*), but not that they are of atomic size (*paramāṇu-tulya*), “because in this case the per- “vading of the whole body would be impossible.” ¹¹⁶ Their subtlety is deducible from the fact that otherwise (if they were *sthūla*, coarse, material) they would necessarily be seen at the time of death, when the soul passes from the body, by the bystanders, just as a snake is seen which glides from its hole (p. 715, 6); and they must be limited and not (like the soul free from *Upādhis*) infinitely great, because for the infinitely great no passing, going and return would be possible (p. 715, 7). “If you maintain that the infinitely great can by reason of “its function (*vṛitti*) be at a given spot in the body, we must “remark that the organs [of the soul] are altogether mere “functions; for the function or whatever it is, that brings about “perception we call an organ; the dispute is therefore only “about names and the assumption of omnipresence a purpose- “less one” [the *Prāṇas* enter into the question only in respect of what they are in the body, even if we call them here organs or functions, and assume as their bearers infinitely great organs]. Therefore the *Prāṇas* are to be regarded as the functions or faculties of seeing, hearing, feeling, grasping, going, etc. which, as they cleave to the soul, are not annihilated at death with the corresponding parts of the body but produce them again and again from themselves as seed produces plants.

c8.s6.t3.8

¹¹⁶ p. 715, 4; above (p. 310 ff.) on the other hand the possibility of action throughout the body is disputed, not for the soul of atomic size, but for the minute soul (which in the state of *Saṃsāra* has the same size as the *Buddhi*, *i.e.*, the *Manas*). If we disregard this and ask what in the strict logic of our system is the nature of the reciprocal action of the minute soul, “large as the point of an awl,” and the body, we have as answer that it is doubtless brought about by the *Prāṇas* which stand in the middle between soul and body; the nature of this connection however *e.g.* of the function or faculty of sight with *Manas* and soul on the one hand, and with the Ego on the other, is not cleared up.

4. The System of the unconscious Life: Organs of Nutrition

c8.s6.t4.1

The principle of the unconscious, vegetative life is the *Mukhya Prâṇa*, an expression which originally meant "Breath in the mouth" (thus Chând. 1, 2, 7 where Bṛih. in the parallel passage 1, 3, 7 reads *âsanyaḥ prâṇaḥ*; cf. Bṛih. 1, 3, 8); in our system however where respiration is only a part of its task it has taken the meaning of "chief breath of life." Its primacy over the other organs of life is a favourite theme of the Upanishads; e.g., in the parable of the contest of the organs (Bṛih. 6, 1. Chând. 5, 1; cf. Kaush. 3, 3. Praçna-Up. 2) according to which the organs: speech, eye, ear, Manas, etc. go forth in order, and, when it is the turn of the *Mukhya* Prâṇa, become conscious of its indispensability and their own dependence on it. A variation of the same theme is the story of the quarrel of the gods (*i. e.*, the organs: smell, eye, ear, Manas, and Mukhya Prâṇa) with the demons, who visit evil on the other organs, but fly to dust on the Prâṇa like clods of earth on a stone (Bṛih. 1, 3. Chând. 1, 2).

c8.s6.t4.2

With many references to these stories Çankara sets forth (2, 4, 8—13) that though the *Mukhya Prâṇa* is also a creation of Brahman, it is still the oldest and noblest among all organs. It is true, he says, the *Nâsad-âsîya* song says (Rigv. X, 129, 2):

c8.s6.t4.3

"Death was not known nor immortality,
"Night was not born, and day was not yet seen,
"Airless, he breathed in primevality
"The one beyond whom nought hath ever been;"

c8.s6.t4.4

but that which "breathed" is not the Prâṇa in this case; on the contrary as the words "without air" proves, it is the highest cause (p. 716). Therefore the Prâṇa too [in the same sense as the other organs, *i. e.*, from its seed which has from eternity been connected with the soul] has originated, but is the oldest among the organs because its function begins from the moment the sperm is introduced, if it actually germinates in the Yoni (p. 717, 3), while the activity of the others is only possible after the auditory passage etc. have originated (p. 717, 5); so too the Prâṇa is the best, because the other organs in the parable of the quarrel of the organs confess to him: "of a "truth without thee we cannot live" (p. 717, 7).

c8.s6.t4.5

What is then the constitution of this Prâna? It is in the first place not air alone, though one passage of Scripture (p. 717, 10) seems to assert this; for it is, Chând. 3, 18, 4, expressly distinguished from air (Vâyu); it seems rather to be a psychic analogue of the (cosmic) divinity of the air (vâyur eva, adhyâtmam âpannah, p. 719, 8). Further, it is also not to be regarded simply as a combined function of the organs (Manas and Indriyas) as the Tantrântariyas (p. 717, 12, i.e., the Sânkhyas) maintain when they say:

c8.s6.t4.6

"The working of the organs when combined
"Are the five airs with Prâna at their head;" ¹¹⁷

c8.s6.t4.7

¹¹⁷ This verse, cited by Çankara (p. 718, 2) is found in the Sânkhya-Kârikâ v. 29 and in the Sânkhya-sûtras 2, 31, where it has manifestly been taken over from the Kârikâ as the artificial metrical form (it is a complete Âryâ-half-verse) sufficiently proves. Further examples in Hall, Sânkhya-Sâra, p. 12.

c8.s6.t4.8

for if it were no more than this it would not be specially mentioned Mund. 2, 1, 3 in addition to Manas and Indriyas. But could it not be the result of the united action of these eleven organs, which produce the life of the body in something the same way as eleven birds shut up in a cage raise it in the air, when they fly upwards? ¹¹⁸ To this is to be replied, that the organs cannot possibly produce the phenomenon of life, because it is absolutely heterogeneous from hearing, etc. (p. 719, 4). It is rather included in the primacy of the Prâna as taught by the Scripture, that the other organs are subordinated to it as qualities (guna) [p. 719, 6. 12; without prejudice to their original essential difference from it; of this below].

c8.s6.t4.9

¹¹⁸ p. 718, 13; this image too seems to belong to the Sânkhyas, at any rate it is found in a distorted form in Gaudapâda on Sânkhya-Kâr. 29, ed. Wilson p. 26, 5.

c8.s6.t4.10

But the Prâna cannot therefore, like the individual soul, be termed the sovereign of the body (p. 719, 12); for even if it alone remains awake, while the organs sleep (Brih. 4, 3, 12, above p. 190) and does not fall into the grip of death (weariness)

c8.s6.t4.11

like them (Bṛih. 1, 5, 21), even if it is called the "absorber" because in sleep it absorbs them into itself (Chând. 4, 3, 3, above p. 61) and guards them as a mother guards her children (Praçna 2, 13) still it is only the prime minister of the soul, just as eye, ear, etc. are its servants (p. 720, 7). For the rest, it is on the same level as the organs (p. 720, 9), is like them an aggregate *saṃhata*, *i.e.*, produced from its seed by the depositing of corpuscles from the Prâṇa-material] and non-spiritual (p. 720, 11); it has not, however, as they have, an object (p. 721, 1) and cannot be reckoned with them as a twelfth organ; it rather supports, nourishes, and animates the whole body, as is further proved on p. 722 from the parable of the contest of the organs.—With this agrees the fact that the Mukhya Prâṇa is termed p. 161, 9 *prajñâ-sâdhana-prâṇa-antara-âçraya* "the support of the other Prâṇas which sub-" "serve the purpose of perception" and that as its task *samî-raṇam* is mentioned p. 471, 2, and *parispanda* pp. 378, 6. 380, 12. 732, 6. 1090, 10, both of which seem to mean stimulation, animation.

c8.s6.t4.12

As animating and supporting principle of life the *Mukhya Prâṇa* has five branches: *Prâṇa*, *Apâna*, *Vyâna*, *Udâna*, and *Samâna*, which are frequently enumerated (*e.g.*, Bṛih. 1, 5, 3. 3, 9, 26. Chând. 3, 13. 5, 18. Praçna 3; the three first only: Bṛih. 3, 1, 10. 5, 14, 3. Chând. 1, 3, 8; four: Bṛih. 3, 4, 1) and are sometimes very differently explained. According to Çaṅkara (p. 723, 1—4) *Prâṇa* is exhaling (*ucchvâsa*), *Apâna* inhaling (*niçvâsa*); *Vyâna* is a sort of combination of both, *viz.* what supports life when the breath is held for a great effort¹¹⁹ in Indian medicine *Vyâna* is the principle of the circulation of the juices and the blood. cf. the St. Petersb. Dict. s. v. as well as Praçna 3, 6; *Samâna* is the principle of digestion; and finally *Udâna* is the faculty which at death brings about the passing of the soul from the body.—We see therefore that the Indians are not so far from our triple division of the regulative system into respiration, circulation, and digestion.

c8.s6.t4.13

¹¹⁹ This explanation of Çaṅkara of *Prâṇa*, *Apâna*, *Vyâna* rests on Chând. 1, 3, 3—5 and agrees with Çaṅkara's Commentary on this passage in which he expressly defines *Prâṇa* as exhaling (*vâyum vahir niḥsârayati*), and *Apâna* as inhaling (*antar âkarshati vâyum*). On the other hand contradicting himself he explains *Apâna* in the Commentary on Chând. 3, 13, 3 and again on Praçna 3, 5 as *mûtra-purîsha-âdi-apanayan*. *i.e.* Secretion. The former view agrees with his explanation of Bṛih. 3, 2, 2, that smell is associated with *Apâna*; the latter, as it seems, with his Commentary on Bṛih. 3, 9, 26 as well as with the theory of the Vedântasâra § 95.—A reconciliation is perhaps attainable from the fact

c8.s6.t4.14

Quantitatively the *Mukhya Prâna* is of minute size (*anu*); here too this means, not that it is of atomic size; for by means of its five functions it pervades the whole body (p. 724, 3); but that it is 1) not coarse, for it is not perceived at the passing of the soul (p. 724, 4), and 2) not infinitely great, for otherwise passing, going, and return would not be possible (p. 724. 5); and when (Brih. 1. 3. 22) it is termed "as large as a termite, as a midge, as an elephant, as these three worlds, as this universe" this is to be understood in a cosmological sense of Hiranyagarbha (a mythological personification of Brahman, cf. note 41) and not in the psychological sense; for in this sense his dimensions are, as the words "as large as a termite" show, limited according to the size of each individual being (p. 724, 10; from the expression: the *prâna* is *pratiprâni-cartin* may be concluded that with its five branches it completely fills the body it happens to be in).

5. Mutual Relation of the Systems of the conscious and unconscious Life

c8.s6.t5.1

Sûtras 2. 4, 17—19.

c8.s6.t5.2

There is a doubt whether the remaining *Prânas* (the *Manas* and the ten *Indriyas*) are mere functions of the *Mukhya Prâna* or are separate entities (p. 729, 3). The former opinion might be maintained, because we read (Brih. 1. 5, 21) "they all became part of its nature" and because they too bear the name *Prâna* (p. 729, 5). But this is not so; they are separate entities, as follows from their having the special name *Indriyam*;

c8.s6.t5.3

that inhaling is of importance for the promotion of the movement of the contents of the intestines.

c8.s6.t5.4

it is true the Śruti (Muṇḍ. 2, 1, 3) mentions the Manas as well as the Indriyas, but the Smṛiti (Manu 2, 89) enumerates eleven Indriyas, and includes the Manas among them, which is never done with the Prāṇa (p. 730). The difference is also exhibited in the fact that in the quarrel of the gods and demons (Bṛih. 1. 3. Chānd. 1, 2) all except the Prāṇa are overcome (p. 730, 12).

c8.s6.t5.5

The difference of the two consists in the following: 1) even if all others sleep, Prāṇa remains awake; 2) all except it are subject to death, Bṛih. 1, 5, 21, by which here weariness is to be understood (p. 732, 2); 3) the Prāṇa, not the Indriyas, conditions by its remaining the continuance, and by its removal the destruction of the body; 4) the activity of all Indriyas is directed to objects [they are organs of relation] but not that of the Prāṇa; 5) that "they became part of its nature" (Bṛih. 1, 5, 21) means that the Indriyas are dependent on the Prāṇa, so far as it brings about their stimulation (parispanda); and for this reason also bear its name (prāṇa) in a metaphorical sense (p. 731, 8--732, 11).

6. The Cooperation of the Gods

c8.s6.t6.1

Sūtras 2, 4, 14--16.

c8.s6.t6.2

The general tendency of the Indians to draw parallels between cosmic and psychic potencies is also displayed in the relation in which the single organs of life are brought to the corresponding elements conceived as gods. Thus in Bṛih. 1, 3, 11 after the Prāṇa in the fight with the demons has warded off evil and death from the organs, the latter are "led beyond death;" speech becomes fire and illuminates, breath becomes wind and purifies, the eye becomes the sun and burns, the ear becomes the poles, and the Manas the moon and shines.--On the other hand Ait. 1, 2, 4 says of the gods who arose from the primitive man and, desiring a fixed abode, enter into human beings: "Fire entered as speech into the mouth, wind "as breath into the nose, the sun as sight into the eye, the "cardinal points as hearing into the ear, herbs and trees as "hair into the skin, the moon as Manas into the heart, death “as Apâna into the navel, and water as seed into the organs of generation.”—In agreement with this according to Brih. 3. 2, 13 at the death of man speech becomes fire, breath wind, the eye becomes the sun, the Manas the moon, the ear the cardinal points, the body the earth, the soul ether [in the heart], the hair on the body becomes herbs, the hair of the head trees, and blood and seed turn to water.

c8.s6.t6.3

On these passages is based the Vedânta theory of the directorship (*adhishthâtritvam*) of the gods over the organs. The organs of life, so Çankara sets forth p. 725—726 on the basis of the texts cited, can only act, so far as they are guided by the corresponding gods; of their own force they cannot do it though they are equipped with the strength requisite for their action (p. 726, 14); just as a waggon though it is strong (*çakta*) needs the oxen to move it (p. 727, 1). This last comparison points to the fact that the organs surrounding the soul are conceived as a mechanism in itself lifeless, which needs in addition a special principle of motion. The soul cannot be employed as such, because it is not an agent and only becomes an agent (*kartar*) through the Upâdhis (*i.e.*, the organs); therefore the activity of the organs is referred partly to the “inner ruler” (above p. 149), *i.e.*, the exoteric Brahman; and partly as here to the gods who are in other respects superannuated. Still their rôle is a purely subsidiary one; they do not share in enjoyment and suffering; this is wholly reserved for the individual soul affected by good and evil, pleasure and pain (p. 728, 3). At death the gods withdraw their assistance; this is all that is meant by the above mentioned return of speech into the fire, etc. (p. 745, 8); nevertheless the organs themselves, the *Prâna* as well as the *Manas* and *Indriyas* withdraw with the soul and accompany it on its wanderings (p. 728, 7).

7. Retrospect

c8.s6.t7.1

After the Indians had early attained the knowledge that the key to the enigma of the world is to be sought nowhere else than in the Self (*Âtman*), they asked themselves further which part of our Ego is to be regarded as the clearest expression of the thing-in-itself—unconscious life which in waking and sleeping goes tireless on its way, or conscious life in whose preponderance consists the advantage of man over other beings?—As it seems to us, both these paths were taken; in earlier times principally the first by the identification of the Prâṇa (breath, life) with Brahman and the corresponding theory of an entrance into Brahman in deep sleep (where according to Çatapathabr. 10, 3, 3, 6 all organs are absorbed into the life); later there was manifested an inclination to the Âtman rather in the subject of cognition within us, and to characterise it therefore as draṣṭar (Brih. 3, 7, 23. 3, 8, 11), prajña-âtman (Kaush. 3), prajña âtman (Brih. 4, 3, 21. 35), prajñâna-ghana (Brih. 4, 5, 13) etc., and to regard the entrance into Brahman in deep sleep rather as an unconscious because objectless Cognition (Brih. 4, 3, 23) or even as a fancifully elaborated ascent to the highest light (Chând. 8, 12, 3); Chând. 7 would there be a polemic of the younger school against the older and Kaush. 3 an attempt to reconcile the two; until finally the extreme intellectualism of the system of the Vedânta was reached, for which Brahman is pure intelligence (caitanyam), while the Prâṇa in the shape of the Mukhya Prâṇa sinks to a mere Upâdhi of the soul.

c8.s6.t7.2

This view which can for the present only be presented as a hypothesis, would among other things explain the singular position of the Mukhya Prâṇa in the system, which on the one hand gives it the primacy over all other Upâdhis, and on the other hand connects the soul not so much with it as with the Manas (dependent on the Mukhya Prâṇa). For while the Mukhya Prâṇa, suiting itself to the size of the body whatever it is (above p. 336) pervades all parts of the body with its five branches, the soul in the state of Saṃsâra is “the nucleus (quintessence) of the qualities of the Buddhi” (above p. 311), i.e., of the Manas; it is like the Manas “large as the point of an awl” and dwells with it in the heart in quasi-identity; from there the Manas sends out the Indriyas as its feelers (organs of perception) and performers of its commands (organs of action) throughout the body. In deep sleep, as we shall see, the *Indriyas* creep into the veins, and these enter into the *Mukhya Prâna*, and, like the *Manas*, attain repose in it, while the soul, united with Brahman, sojourns in the ether of the heart. This liberation of the soul from the *Upâdhis* (*upâdhi-upaçama*) is conditioned by the cessation of the activity of the *Indriyas* and the *Manas*, but not of the *Mukhya Prâna*, whose activity continues in sleep as it does in the waking state; this makes clear how loose the connection between it and the soul is; its repose is not necessary for the repose of the soul, and its activity is without influence on the state of the soul. It appears rather as the antipodes of the soul in the life of the organism, as the gathering-place of the *Upâdhis* and therefore as the central point of all that individualises the soul and obscures its original divinity. True the *Mukhya Prâna* is not, like the *Manas* and *Indriyas*, servant of the soul but its prime minister (*mantrin* p. 720, 7); it is however a minister with whom the sovereign is not on the best of terms; the weal of the land is committed to his care, but his Highness prefers to reside in the castle of a favourite (the *Manas*) whom he prefers, but who is subject to the minister; this is a position which may be reached in the course of political evolution, but it is certainly nowhere the original state of things.

c8.s6.t7.3

The matter is somewhat different with regard to death; here, as we shall see, the *Indriyas* first of all enter into the *Manas*, and then in succession the *Manas* into the *Mukhya Prâna* [in which it already is, spatially considered], the *Mukhya Prâna* into the *Jîva* (individual soul), and therefore into the heart; finally the *Jîva* enters into the "subtle parts of the elements which form the seed of the body," *i.e.*, into the subtle body, which is their bearer during the migration.

c8.s6.t7.4

As this subtle body is related to the coarse body, so are the organs which pass out with it related to the material organs which perish with the body; they are their continuations *vija-âtmanâ* or *çakti-âtmanâ* as seed or power; *i.e.*, while eye and ear, hand and foot perish at death, their function (*vritti*), the power of seeing, hearing, going, grasping, etc. connected with the soul, wanders out with it (in a latent state) and serves for a new incarnation as the seed from which the material organs proceed just as the coarse body arises from the subtle body. [A combination of the material of the subtle body from the three original elements, and of the material of the coarse body from their triply or quintuply mixed derivatives is not yet discoverable in Çankara's commentary].

c8.s6.t7.5

According to this the interaction of body and soul must be conceived as follows: the *Indriyas* are simply the powers or functions of the *Karanas*, *i.e.*, of the material organs; these they produce out of themselves and remain in the closest and most intimate connection with them; these *Indriyas* have their common centre in the *Manas*; the *Manas* is homogeneous with them and itself an *Indriyam*; it dwells, large as the point of an awl, in the heart; in the *Manas*, filling it completely and (except by liberation and temporarily in deep sleep) inseparably connected with it, is the Soul, which, by the mediation of the *Manas* and *Indriyas*, governs the movements of the *Karanas* and receives their impressions; while the *Mukhya Prâna* with its five branches pervades the whole body and provides for its nutrition on behalf of the soul; it is subject to the soul, but, leaving death out of the question, a connection between the two is not discoverable.

Linked texts (12)