After having taught that Ether and all the other elements are effects,
and hence have originated, the Sûtras had shown that the individual soul,
although likewise an effect, does not originate in the sense of
undergoing a change of essential nature; and had in connexion therewith
clearly set forth wherein the essential nature of the soul consists.
They now proceed to elucidate the question as to the origination of the
instruments of the individual soul, viz. the organs and the vital breath.
The point here to be decided is whether the organs are effects as the
individual soul is an effect, or as ether and the other elements are. As
the soul is, thus the prânas are, the Pûrvapakshin maintains. That means--
as the soul is not produced, thus the organs also are not produced--For
the latter point no less than the former is directly stated in Scripture;
the wording of the Sûtra 'thus the prânas' being meant to extend to the
case of the prânas also, the authority of Scripture to which recourse
was had in the case of the soul.--But what is the scriptural text you
mean?
'Non-being, truly this was in the beginning. Here they say, what was
that? Those Rishis indeed were that Non-being, thus they say. And who
were those Rishis? The prânas indeed were those Rishis.' This is the
passage which declares that before the origination of the world the
Rishis existed. As 'prânâh' is in the plural, we conclude that what is
meant is the organs and the vital air. Nor can this text be interpreted
to mean only that the prânas exist for a very long time (but are not
uncreated); as we may interpret the texts declaring Vâyu and the
atmosphere (antariksha) to be immortal: 'Vâyu and the atmosphere are
immortal'; 'Vâyu is the deity that never sets' (Bri. Up. II, 3, 3; I, 5,
22). For the clause 'Non-being indeed was this in the beginning'
declares that the prânas existed even at the time when the entire world
was in the pralaya state. Those texts, then, which speak of an
origination of the prânas must be explained somehow, just as we did with
the texts referring to the origination of the individual soul.
To this the Siddhântin replies, 'the prânas also originate in the same
way as ether, and so on.'--Why?--Because we have scriptural texts
directly stating that before creation everything was one, 'Being only
this was in the beginning,' 'The Self only was this in the beginning.'
And moreover, the text 'from that there is produced the prâna and the
mind and all organs'(Mu. Up. II, 3, 1) declares that the organs
originated; they therefore cannot have existed before creation. Nor is
it permissible to ascribe a different meaning to the texts which declare
the origination of the sense-organs--as we may do in the case of the
texts declaring the origination of the soul. For we have no texts
directly denying the origination of the sense-organs, or affirming their
eternity, while we _have_ such texts in the case of the individual soul.
In the text quoted by the Pûrvapakshin, 'Non-being indeed was this in
the beginning,' &c., the word prâna can denote the highest Self only;
for from texts such as 'All these beings indeed enter into breath alone,
and from breath they arise'(Ch. Up. I, 11, 5), the word prâna is known
to be one of the designations of the highest Self. And as to the clause
'the prânas indeed are those Rishis,' we remark that the term Rishi may
properly be applied to the all-seeing highest Self, but not to the non-
intelligent organs.
But how then is the plural form 'the Rishis are the prânas' to be
accounted for? This the next Sûtra explains.
2. (The scriptural statement of the plural) is secondary, on account of
impossibility; and since (the highest Self) is declared before that.
The plural form exhibited by the text must be taken (not in its literal,
but) in a secondary figurative sense, since there is no room there for a
plurality of things. For Scripture declares that previous to creation
the highest Self only exists.