II, 4, 10

10. But (the prāṇa is subordinate to the soul) like the eye, &c., on account of being taught with them (the eye, &c.), and for other reasons.

The word 'but' sets aside the independence of the prāṇa. As the eye and so on stand, like the subjects of a king, in mere subordinate relation to the acting and enjoying of the soul and are not independent, so the chief vital air also, occupying a position analogous to that of a king's minister, stands in an entirely subordinate relation to the soul and is not independent.--Why?--Because it is taught (spoken of) together with them, i.e. the eye and the other organs, in such passages as the colloquy of the prāṇas, &c. For to be mentioned together is appropriate only in the case of things with the same attributes, as e.g. the Bṛhat-sāman and the Rathantara-sāman.^[1] The words 'and so on' (in the Sūtra) indicate other reasons refuting the independence of the prāṇa, such as its being composed of parts, its being of a non-intelligent nature and the like.--Well, but if it be admitted that the prāṇa stands to the soul in the relation of an instrument as the eye and so on. it will follow that we must assume another sense-object analogous to colour and so on. For the eyes, &c., occupy their specific subordinate position with regard to the soul through their functions which consist in the seeing of colour and so on. Now we can enumerate only eleven classes of functions, viz. the seeing of colour and so on, on whose account we assume eleven different prāṇas, and there is no twelfth class of effects on account of which a twelfth prāṇa could be assumed.--To this objection the following Sūtra replies.