Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 2.4.5

So far we have shown that there is in reality no conflict of scriptural passages regarding the origin of the pra«as. It will now be shown that there is also no conflict regarding their number. The chief vital air (mukhya pra;/a) will be discussed later on. For the present the Sutrakara defines the number of the other prA«as. A doubt arises here owing to the conflicting nature of the scriptural passages. In one place seven prawas are mentioned, ‘ The seven pra//as spring from him’ (Mu. Up. II, 1, 8). In another place eight prawas arc mentioned as being grahas, ‘ Eight grahas there are and eight atigrahas’ (Bri Up. Ill, 2, i). In another place nine, ‘ Seven arc the praz/as of the head, two the lower ones ’ (Taitt. Sa;//h. V, 3, 2, 5). Sometimes ten, 'Nine praz/as indeed are in men, the navel is the tenth’ (Taitt. Sazzzh. V, 3, 2, 3). Sometimes eleven, ‘ Ten are these prSz/as in man, and Atman is the eleventh ’ (Bri. Up. Ill, 9, 4). Sometimes twelve, ‘ All touches have their centre in the skin,’ &c. (Bri, Up. II, 4, ii). Sometimes thirteen, ‘The eye and what can be seen,’ &c. (Pr. Up. IV, 8).—Thus the scriptural passages disagree about the number of the praz/as. Here the pfirvapakshin maintains that the prS;zas are in reality seven in number, on account of understanding, i.e. because they are understood to be so many, from passages such as ‘ The seven prawas spring from him,’ &c. These seven prd;/as are moreover specified in the other passage quoted above, ‘Seven indeed are the pranas of the head.’ —But in the same passage we meet with the following reiteration, ‘ Resting in the cave they are placed there seven and seven,’ which intimates that there are prd/^as in addition to the seven.—No matter, we reply ; that reiteration is made with reference to the plurality of men, and means that each man has seven pra;/as ; it does not mean that there are two sets of seven pranas each of different nature. —But, another objection will be raised, other scriptural passages speak of the pra;/as as eight in number ; how then should they be seven ? True, we reply, the number of eight also is stated ; but on account of the contradictory nature of the statements we have to decide in favour of either of the two numbers ; hence we decide in favour of the number seven, in deference to the (simpler) assumption of a low number, and consider the statements of other numbers to refer to the difference of modifications (of the fundamental seven pra;/as). To this argumentation the next Sutra replies.