Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 2.4.17

We have treated of the mukhya prd;/a and the other eleven pr^iwas in due order.—Now there arises another doubt, viz. whether the other pr£l;/as are functions of the mukhya prA/?a or different beings.—The purvapakshin maintains that they are mere functions, on account of scriptural statement. For scripture, after having spoken of the chief prawa and the other prdwas in proximity, declares that those other prd;/as have their Self in the chief pra;/a, ‘ Well, let us all assume his form.’ Thereupon they all assumed his form’ (Bri. Up. I, 5, 21). Their unity is moreover ascertained from the unity of the term applied to them, viz. prA«a. Otherwise there either would result the objectionable circumstance of one word having different senses, or else the word would in some places have to be taken in its primary sense, in others in a derived sense. Hence, as pra;/a, apdna, &c. are the five functions of the one chief prawa, so the eleven prA;/as also which begin with speech are mere functions of the chief prS;/a.—To this we reply as follows. Speech and so on are beings different from the chief pra;/a, on account of the difference of designation.—Which is that difference of designation?—The eleven prd;/as remaining if we abstract from the best one, i.e. the chief prS;/a, are called the sense-organs (indriya), as wc see them designated in vSTuti, ‘ from him is born breath, mind, and all organs of sense’ (Mu. Up. II, 1, 3). In this and other passages pra//a and the sense-organs are mentioned separately. But in that case the mind also would have to be excluded from the class of sense-organs, like the pra;/a ; as we see that like the latter it is separately mentioned in the passage, ‘ The mind and all organs of sense.’ True ; but in Smr/ti eleven sense-organs are mentioned, and on that account the mind must, like the ear, and so on, be comprised in the sense-organs. That the pra;m on the other hand is a sense-organ is known neither from Smr/ti nor Srutu.—Now this difference of designation is appropriate only if there is difference of being. If there were unity of being it would be contradictory that the pr&«a although one should sometimes be designated as sense-organ and sometimes not. Consequently the other pr^was are different in being from the chief pra;/a.—For this conclusion the following Sutra states an additional reason.