वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

[SŪ. 2. 4 11. 462 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.] (We reply:) “no”, since the scriptural text: ‘ “I alone, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3 ¹), “shows” that the holding up of the body is the peculiar function of the vital- breath. Vedānta-kaustubha If it be objected. Just as one can be a perceiver only if there be some object to be perceived, so a thing may be an instrument only if there be some function to be accomplished by it; and this is not found. Hence the vital-breath cannot be a sense-organ Thus, as the vital-breath is not a sense-organ, so if it be an instrument of the individual soul, it is but a futile one,— We reply: “No”. There is no such fault. “For,” i.e. since, in order that the vital-breath may be serviceable as an instrument of the individual soul, the holy Scripture “shows”, under the dialogue among the sense-organs, that a purpose is served by the vital-breath as well—one that cannot be served by the sense-organs,—viz. the holding up of the body and the sense-organs: ‘The chief vital-breath said to them: “Do not fall in delusion. It is I alone who, dividing myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3). COMPARISON Śaṁkara and Bhāskara According to them the word “akaraṇatvāt” answers the prima facie, viz. that if the vital-breath be an organ of the soul, then there must be a sense-object for it, like colour for the eyes and so on. The answer is that there need be no sense-object, since the vital-breath is not an organ like the eyes and the rest. Still it is not devoid of a function, the holding of the body being its special function.² Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva According to them, the word “akaraṇatvāt” means: “On account of not having a function”. That is, no objection can be raised on ¹ Ś. ² Ś.B. 2.4.11, pp 662-63; Bh. B. 2.4.11, p. 148.