The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c8.s6.t7.2

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.