śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāma-devavat: All powers come from the Lord

Indra’s “I am prāṇa” aligns with scripture like sage Vāmadeva’s unity with Brahman. It teaches all powers, including Indra’s, come from the Supreme Lord, who pervades everything.

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

Sutra 1.1.30 - śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāma-devavat

śāstra-dṛṣṭyā tūpadeśo vāma-devavat

śāstra: of the scripture; dṛṣṭyā: from the viewpoint; tu: but, however; upadeśaḥ: instruction, teaching; vāmadeva: the sage Vāmadeva; vat: like.

Indra speaks in this way [identifying himself with the Supreme Brahman] in accordance with the scriptures, just as the sage Vāmadeva.

Commentary: After explaining the meaning of prāna in the passage, Vyāsadeva now directly clarifies the speech of Indra, comparing his statement with the teachings of the sage Vāmadeva:

tad vaitat paśyan nrşir vāmadevah pratipade aham manur abhavam sūryaś ca

"Seeing this truth, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment: 'I became Manu. I became the sun-god.'"

The context of this passage is the description of creation in the 4th chapter of the first part of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. After explaining the process of creation, the Upaniṣad describes the Supreme Brahman as being behind everything, and the way the sage Vāmadeva realized it. The complete passage is:

brahma vā idam agre āsīt, tad ātmānam evāvet, ahaṁ brahmāsmīti, tasmāt tat sarvam abhavat, tad yo yo devānāṁ pratyabudhyata sa eva tad abhavat, tatharṣīnām, tathā manuṣyāṇām, tad dhaitat paśyan ṛṣir vāmadevaḥ pratipede, ‘ahaṁ manur abhavaṁ sūryaś ceti’, tad idam apy etarhi ya evaṁ veda, ‘ahaṁ brahmāsmīti’, sa idaṁ sarvaṁ bhavati, tasya ha na devāścanābhūtyā īśate, ātmā hy eṣāṁ sa bhavati, atha yo ’nyāṁ devatām upāste, ‘anyo ’sāv, anyo ’ham asmīti’, na sa veda, yathā paśur evaṁ sa devānām, yathā ha vai bahavaḥ paśavo manuṣyaṁ bhuñjyuḥ, evam ekaikaḥ puruṣo devān bhunakti, ekasminn eva paśāv ādīyamāne ’priyaṁ bhavati kim u bahuṣu, tasmād eṣāṁ tan na priyaṁ yad etan manuṣyā vidyuḥ.

"In the beginning, there was only Brahman, who knew Himself, saying: 'I am Brahman.' From this Brahman came everything that exists. Whomever among the devatās, the sages, or men realized this, also became that same Brahman.

Seeing this truth, the sage Vāmadeva repeated at every moment: 'I became Manu. I became the Sun-god.'

Even today, when anyone realizes, "I am Brahman", he becomes Brahman, he becomes everything. Even the demigods can't prevent that person’s liberation since becoming Brahman, he becomes the controller of the devatās.

However, one who worships another deity, thinking that "this devatā is different from Brahman, and I am different from Brahman", this person doesn't know. He is in ignorance of his very self. Such persons are like animals for the devatās. Just like many animals serve a man, many of such persons serve each demigod. Just as a man doesn't like to lose some of his animals, the devatās prefer that men do not come to know Brahman [fearful of losing their devotees]." (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad 1.4.10)

When there is an assembly of several people and they all agree on a certain point, it is not strange to say that "they are one". This doesn't mean they merged as individuals, but that they share the same opinion. Similarly, we refer to all cables, poles, electrical substations, individual outlets, etc., as the "electrical grid", although it is formed by individual components.

In the same way, because the Supreme Brahman grants power to all living entities, including Manu, the sun-god, and Vāmadeva, it is not incorrect to say they are one since they are connected to the same source. This, however, should not be misinterpreted as meaning that they physically merged into a single entity.

In this passage, Vāmadeva speaks according to this principle. He identifies himself with Manu and the sun-god because he identifies himself as one with the Supreme Brahman in quality and interest, and because he sees that the same Supreme Brahman empowers Manu, the sun-god, and Vāmadeva. They all receive their powers from the Supreme Brahman, who is the all-pervading Paramātmā.

In one sense, the Supreme Lord is one with everything, because everything is permeated by Him. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the source of both prāna and Indra, and therefore when Indra says "I am prāṇa, I'm intelligence, and I'm the Self. Meditate on me as life and immortality." it should be understood he is speaking about Paramātmā, who is present inside His heart, following the same logic as the sage Vāmadeva.

This is also supported by other passages from the scriptures. The first chapter of part five of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, for example, brings a discussion between the different senses of the body, where they conclude that prāna is the chief and the maintainer of all of them. The eye is thus prāna, the ear is prāna, and so on. Prāna is all of them, and all of them are prāna. They have no existence separated from prāna:

na vai vāco na cakṣūṁṣi na śrotrāṇi an manāṁsīty ācakṣate prāṇā ity ācakṣate prāṇo hy evaitāni sarvāṇi bhavati

"It is not proper to call the senses 'voice', 'eye', 'ear', or 'mind', because everything that exists is prāna. The proper name for all of them is prāna.” (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.1.15)

Just as people who don't know the scriptures see the demigods as separate deities, when we are not situated in knowledge, we fail to comprehend that the Lord is everything and that everything is the Lord. Due to the lack of this comprehension, we fall into material duality, seeing things as separate from the Lord and thus subject to our enjoyment. This is the root cause of the continuation of our material life, and thus the Chāndogya Upaniṣad calls our attention to that.

This is also explained by Krsna Himself on SB 2.9.34:

ṛte ’rthaṁ yat pratīyeta, na pratīyeta cātmani

tad vidyād ātmano māyāṁ, yathābhāso yathā tamaḥ

"O Brahmā, whatever appears to be of any value, if it is without relation to Me, has no reality. Know it as My illusory energy, that reflection which appears to be in darkness."

Even if we accept that Brahman is everything, how can we call everything by the same name? The Bhaviṣya Purāṇa explains:

yad adhīnā yasya sattā tat tad ity eva bhaṇyate

"That whose existence is dependent on another is called by that same name."

Although in practical life we call the eye "eye", and we call Indra as "Indra", ultimately, these are all manifestations of the Lord. What we call "Indra" (as a body or a position) is just a manifestation of the external potency of the Lord. However, a particular soul, under the influence of the illusory potency, identifies itself with this body and position and incorrectly claims to the Indra. In the passage, Indra intelligently acknowledges that his body and opulences are manifestations of the Supreme Lord and that the Lord performs many wonderful deeds through this body.

In this way, when Indra says "I am prāṇa", he is just teaching his student that the functions performed by Indra's body, as well as his power and opulence, are completely dependent on the Supreme Lord.

There are many other passages that reinforce this same point:

yo yaṁ tvaṁ tvaṁgato deva-sampuṁ devatā-gaṇaḥ

sa tvaṁ eva jagat-sraṣṭā yataḥ sarva-gato bhavān

The demigods who come before you are identical with you, since you pervade everything. You are the creator of the universe. (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 1.9.69)

ananta-vīryāmita-vikramas tvaṁ, sarvaṁ samāpnoṣi tato ’si sarvaḥ

"O unbounded power, You are the master of limitless might! You are all-pervading, and thus You are everything!" (Bg 11.40)

Sutra 1.1.31 - jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cen na upāsā-traividhyād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt

jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cen na upāsā-traividhyād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt

jīva: of the individual soul; mukhya: the primary; prāṇa: living force; liṅgāt: the signs; na iti cet: if (one were to say), (it would be) not so; na: not; iti: thus; cet: if; na: not; upāsya: worshipable; taividhyāt: because of having a certain form, or nature; āśritatvāt: because of taking shelter; iha: here; tat-yogāt: being appropriate.

If one says that the word "prāna" also refers to the jīva and the vital air, as well as to Brahman, I say it is not so. If we accept that view, we end up with three different objects for meditation, which is illogical in the context of the scriptures. The Upaniṣads describe Brahman as the foundation and essence of both jīva and prāṇa (āśritatvāt), so they are not independent entities for separate worship. They are dependent on Brahman. Therefore, it is appropriate in this context to interpret prāṇa as referring to Brahman alone (iha tad-yogāt).

Commentary: Following the previous points, one could argue that the word "prāna" in these verses can be used in the sense of the vital air, the individual soul in the body of Indra, and also the Supreme Brahman. If this idea were accepted, it would lead to the conclusion that all three of them are worshipable. We would then end up with three different objects of worship, which contradicts the Upaniṣads’ teaching of non-duality and a single object of worship. Although the scriptures describe each soul as a separate individual and the different potencies of the Lord as distinct, still, they are not independent from the Supreme Lord, who is the foundation, maintainer, destination of all, and the only object of worship.

Apart from that, when Indra says "Worship me as prāna", he uses only one sentence, and the rules of rhetoric demand that a sentence must have only one correct interpretation.

The word prāna in this context can be interpreted in three ways, but only one is correct.

1) We can take all the passages, including the ones that directly mention Brahman, as meaning both the jīva and the vital air.

2) We can accept some of the passages as referring to the jīva and the vital air, and others to Brahman.

3) We can take all these passages as referring to the Supreme Brahman alone.

The first interpretation was already dismissed in the previous sutras. Nor the jīva nor the vital airs have the qualities attributed to prāna in some of the passages. The second possibility is also illogical, leading to three separate objects of worship. In this case, the absolute truth would be not one, but three, and all scriptures would have to be rewritten. Vyāsadeva condemns this interpretation with the word "āśritatvād" in the sutra. Āśrita means "dependent, resting upon, supported by" and -tva means "the state of being". The suffix -t puts it in the ablative (because of). Both the jīva and the vital air are dependent on the Supreme Brahman, and therefore, they can't be separate objects of worship. We must accept, thus, the third interpretation: all these passages refer to the Supreme Brahman alone, and only He is worshipable.

Therefore, Vyāsadeva concludes this section with the expression "tad-yogāt"; this is the appropriate conclusion.

To this conclusion, four objections could be raised, which are dismissed by Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his commentary:

a) One could challenge: "Where is the explicit indication of this in the text?"

The answer is that at the beginning of the passage, Pratardana asks: tvam eva me vṛṇīṣa yaṁ tvaṁ manuṣyāya hitatamaṁ manyase iti (Please choose for me the boom that is most beneficial for mankind). Indra answers, telling him to meditate on prāna, the only logical interpretation is that prāna is Brahman, as already discussed.

b) The passage says: etāv asmiñ śarīre vasataḥ sahotkrāmataḥ (Indeed, these two, prāṇa and prajñā, dwelling together in this body, depart together). One could argue about how this passage can apply to Brahman.

The answer is that the Supreme Brahman is present in the body as kriya-śakti (the potency of action), which is also known as prāna or vital air, and also as jñana-śakti (the potency of knowledge), which is also known as prajñā or intelligence. Both potencies are manifested from Brahman and remain in the body as long as it is alive, exiting together at the time of death. In one sense, they are Brahman, but in another not, as explained by Krsna in the Gītā:

mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ, jagad avyakta-mūrtinā

mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni, na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ

na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni, paśya me yogam aiśvaram

bhūta-bhṛn na ca bhūta-stho, mamātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation."

There is thus no contradiction.

c) One could argue that many passages use the words prāna and jīva as adjectives, such as prāṇaḥ puruṣaḥ (the man endowed with life) and jīvaḥ puruṣaḥ (the living man). If both are adjectives, how can we try to qualify them as names, equating both to Brahman? One could argue they must be taken as separated, or as merely describing attributes of Brahman. If this argument is accepted, then the second interpretation (We can accept some of the passages as referring to the jīva and the vital air, and others to Brahman) can still be upheld, since some passages would describe prāna as an adjective to Brahman, and others describe prāna as a separate entity.

The answer is that in Sanskrit grammar, words can be simultaneously adjectives (viśeṣaṇa) and nouns (nāma). This is called viśeṣaṇa-viśeṣya-sāmānādhikaraṇya. For example, the word śukla can be used as both an adjective and a name, according to the context, as in śuklaḥ paṭaḥ (the white cloth) and śuklaḥ gacchati (the white one walks).

Therefore, just because prāṇa and prajñā function as adjectives in some contexts, it does not mean they are always adjectives. They can function as nouns when the context demands. When Indra says prāṇo 'smi prajñātmā taṁ mām āyur-amṛtam upasasva (I'm prāṇa, prajñā and ātma), he uses these words as nouns.

In this way, the argument is dismissed. The words prāṇa, prajñā, ātmā, and Indra should be understood to refer to the Supreme Brahman.

d) One could question why this whole discussion is relevant, since prāna was already defined as Brahman on sutra 1.1.23. The answer is that the previous discussion was about the meaning of the word prāna, and the current discussion is about the proper object of meditation in the specific passage of the Kauṣītaki Upanisad, where it is related to other words, such as ānanda. Without this discussion, one could conclude that the passage teaches one to meditate on a jīva or on the vital air to attain transcendental bliss, which would be a fatal mistake. Thus, the session had to be discussed separately.

These are the three relevant verses from the passage of Patardana and Indra we studied in this passage:

pratardano ha vai daivodāsiḥ indrasya priyaṁ dhāmopajagāma, yuddhena ca pauruṣeṇa ca, taṁ ha indra uvāca: pratardana, varaṁ vṛṇīṣveti, sa hovāca pratardanaḥ: tvam eva me vṛṇīṣa yaṁ tvaṁ manuṣyāya hitatamaṁ manyase iti, taṁ ha indra uvāca: na vai varo darśanena vṛṇīta; tvam eva vṛṇīṣveti, avaro vai kila me iti hovāca pratardanaḥ, atho khalv indraḥ satyenaiva nayāya; satyaṁ hīndraḥ, tāṁ ha indra uvāca: mām eva vijānīhi, etadevāhaṁ manuṣyāya hitatamaṁ manye, yan māṁ vijānīyāt, tṛśīrṣaṇaṁ tvāṣṭram ahanam, aruṇmukhān yatīn sālākavṛkeṣu prāyacchaṁ barhīḥ, samyag atikramya divi prahlādīyān tudāham, antarīkṣe paulomān kālakāñjān, tasya me tatra na loma canāmīyata, sa yo māṁ veda, na ha vai tasya kena cana karmaṇā lopo mīyate, na steyena, na brūṇahattyayā, na mātr̥vadhenā, na pitr̥vadhenā, nāryaṁ pāpaṁ cakṣuṣo mukhaṁ āpnoti it

"Pratardana, son of Divodāsa, through valor in battle and personal prowess, reached the impressive abode of Indra.

Indra addressed him: O Pratardana, choose a boon.

Pratardana replied: Please choose for me whatever you regard as the very best benefit for a human being.

Indra answered: A boon is not to be chosen carelessly; choose it yourself carefully.

Pratardana said: Alas, it seems I'm unworthy of such a blessing.

Indra, who was bound to tell him the truth, then answered: Know me (i.e., know the Supreme Brahman) alone. This is what I consider most beneficial for a man: that he should know me.

I killed the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭṛ (Viśvarūpa). I delivered the barhis sacrificial grass to the Aruṇmukhā Ṛṣis in the Śalavṛka forest. I defeated the asuras, descendants of Prahlāda (led by Bali Maharaja) in the heavens, and the Paulomas, and Kālakāñjas in the sky. In that battle, not even a single hair of mine was harmed.

Whoever knows me becomes pure and is protected from any kind of sinful reaction, up to killing an unborn baby, one's father, or one's mother." (Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad 3.1)

In this passage, Indra identifies himself with the Supreme Brahman, therefore, the word "me" is used in the sense of the Supreme Brahman, who is the source of the body, opulences, prowess, and activities of Indra. It may seem that Indra is boasting about his own activities, but in fact, he is glorifying the Supreme Lord. The meaning is that one should meditate on the Supreme Brahman alone, who is the source of many wonderful material manifestations.

sa hovāca: prāṇo’smi prajñātmā, taṁ mām āyur-amṛtam ity upāsva, āyuḥ prāṇaḥ, prāṇo vā āyuḥ, yāvad vai’smin śarīre prāṇo vasati, tāvad āyuḥ, prāṇena haivaiṣa loke’mṛtatvam āpnoti, prajñayā satyaṁ saṅkalpam, sa yo mām āyur-amṛtam ity upāste, sarvam āyuṣyaṁ lokaṁ ety amṛtatvam aśnute svargye loke, tad haika āhur: ekamūrtyaṁ vai prāṇā gacchantīti, na hi kaścana śaknuyāt sakṛt kṛtvā ca nāma prajñāpayituṁ, cakṣuṣā rūpāṇi, śrotreṇa śabdān, manasā dhyānam, ekamūrtyaṁ vai prāṇā bhūtvā, ekaṁ etāni sarvāṇi prajñāpayanti, vācaṁ vadanti, sarve prāṇā anuvadanti, cakṣuḥ paśyati, sarve prāṇā anupaśyanti, śrotraṁ śṛṇvanti, sarve prāṇā anuśṛṇvanti, mano dhyāyati, sarve prāṇā anudhyāyanti, prāṇaṁ prāṇanti, sarve prāṇā anuprāṇanti, evaṁ hy etad iti ha Indra uvāca

Indra said: I am prāṇa, I'm intelligence, and I'm the Self. Meditate on me as life and immortality. Life is prāna, and prāna is life. As long as prāna dwells in this body, there is life. As soon as it leaves, the body dies. Prāna is thus the source of life, and by prāna alone does one attain immortality in this world, achieving realization through intelligence, truth, and resolve. He who worships me as life and immortality attains immortal life in the spiritual world.

No one can obtain a single bit of knowledge without prāṇa. He can't see, hear, or think. All the different vital airs are prāna, and thus in a single, unified form, prāna makes everything known: when one speaks using his speech, prāna speaks along, when he sees using his eyes, prāna sees along, when one hears using his ears, prāna hears along, when one thinks using his mind, prāna thinks along, and when he breathes, prāna breathes along. All of this becomes possible only by prāna.

Having become one form, the prāṇas make all these known: they speak by speech, and all the prāṇas follow speech; the eye sees, and all the prāṇas see along; the ear hears, and all the prāṇas hear along; the mind meditates, and all the prāṇas meditate along; they breathe with the breath, and all the prāṇas breathe along. (Kauṣītaki Upanisad 3.2)

Here, the words prāṇa, prajñā, and ātmā are used in the sense of Brahman. They all refer to the Supreme Brahman, who is behind everything. No action can be performed without his sanction and help.

na vācaṃ vijijñāsīta vaktāraṃ vidhyāt, na gandhaṃ vijijñāsīta ghātāraṃ vidhyāt, na rūpaṃ vijijñāsīta draṣṭāraṃ vidhyāt, na śabdaṃ vijijñāsīta śrotāraṃ vidhyāt, nān rasaṃ vijijñāsītān rasasya vijñātāraṃ vidhyāt, na karma vijijñāsīta kartāraṃ vidhyāt, na sukhaduḥkhe vijijñāsīta sukhaduḥkhayor vijñātāraṃ vidhyāt, nānandaṃ na ratiṃ na prajātiṃ vijijñāsīta ānandasya rateḥ prajāter vijñātāraṃ vidhyāt, netyāṃ vijijñāsītetarāṃ vidhyāt, na mano vijijñāsīta mantāraṃ vidhyāt, tā vā etā daśaiva bhūtamātrā adhiprajñaṃ daśa prajñāmātrā adhibhūtam, yadi bhūtamātrā na syur prajñāmātrāḥ syuḥ, yadi prajñāmātrā na syur bhūtamātrāḥ syuḥ, na hy anyatarato rūpaṃ kiñcana sidhyet

no etānānā, tadyathā rathyāreṣu nemir arpītā nāmāvarā arpītā, evam evaitā bhūtamātrāḥ prajñāmātrāsv arpitāḥ, prajñāmātrāḥ prāṇeṣv arpitāḥ, **sa eṣa prāṇa evaṃ prajñātmanā ānando jaro’mṛtaḥ, na sādhunā karmaṇā bhūyām bhavati, no evāsādhunā kanīyān, eṣa ha eva sādhu karma kārayati taṃ yam ebhyo lokeṣy agnī nīyate, **eṣa u evāsādhu karmā kārayati taṃ yam adho nunutsate, eṣa lokapālaḥ, eṣa lokādhipatiḥ, eṣa lokeśaḥ, sa ma ātmā iti vidhātas ma ātmā iti vidhāt

"Prāna is the foundation for all forms and actions; therefore, one should not seek to know speech; one should know the speaker. One should not seek to know smell, but know the smeller. One should not seek to know form, but know the seer. One should not seek to know sound, but know the hearer. One should not seek to know taste, but know the knower of taste. One should not seek to know action, but know the doer. One should not seek to know pleasure and pain, but know the knower of pleasure and pain. One should not seek to know bliss, delight, or procreation, but know the knower of these. One should not seek to know the negation, but know the other. One should not seek to know the mind, but know the thinker.

Everything is dependent on Him. Just as in a chariot wheel, the outer ring rests on the rods, which are in turn connected to the central hub; in the same way, the different objects of the senses depend on prajñā (our cognitive faculties) to be known, and cognition depends on prāna to operate. This prāna alone is the Self, He is consciousness, knowledge, transcendence, and transcendental bliss. He is undecaying, free from old age and death, He is immortal and the Lord of all living entities and all planets. Prāna is the Supreme Controller.

Due to prāna alone, a person becomes capable of performing pious acts, and due to such pious acts, one is brought upwards. Similarly, prāna alone makes one capable of performing evil actions, according to one's desire, and the doer of such action is thrust downward. Prāna is the protector of the worlds. He is the ruler of the worlds. He is the lord of the worlds. One should thus realize: He is my self (atmā)." (Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad 3.8)

Exercise

Now it's your turn. Can you answer the following arguments using the ideas from this section?

Opponent: At first, one can hastily conclude that the word prāna mentioned in many verses of the Upaniṣads should be identified with Brahman. However, a deeper and more careful study of the sastras reveals that in reality, prāna in the context of the Upaniṣads means the individual spirit soul, jīva.

This is very clearly explained in the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad:

prāṇo 'smi prajñātmā taṁ mām āyur-amṛtam upasasva

"I am prāṇa, I'm intelligence, and I'm the Self. Meditate on me as life and immortality." (Kauṣītaki Upanisad 3.2)

Here, Indra, a devatā in addressing Pratardana. The dialogue occurs in a specific and karmic context, where Pratardana is offered a boon from Indra, who speaks from the perspective of a conditioned jīva. Here, Indra clearly uses the words "prāṇo 'smi", directly stating that he is prāna. To interpret prāna as being Brahman would be most inappropriate. Brahman is nirguna, transcendental, unlimited, and unaffected by actions, while prāṇa is mutable, finite, and perishable.

The speaker is Indra, and he clearly refers to himself. He then proceeds to further identify himself by saying: "I killed the three-headed son of Tvaṣṭṛ. I delivered the barhis sacrificial grass to the Aruṇmukhā Ṛṣis in the Śalavṛka forest. I defeated the asuras, descendants of Prahlāda in the heavens, and the Paulomas and Kālakāñjas in the sky. In that battle, not even a single hair of mine was harmed."

This reinforces the identity of Indra as a conditioned soul, performing activities under the three modes, and identifying with these material activities. This conditioned jīva advises another jīva (Patardana) to worship him. Indra identifies with his material body, and therefore, he identifies with prāna because prāna is the source of life for the body.

One could argue that later in the passage, prāna is described as ānanda (transcendental bliss), but this is also not inconsistent, because the glories of the individual soul are also described in the Vedic literature. Indra, as a jīva, is thus both prāna and ānanda.

When later in the passage, it is mentioned that prāna alone is the Self, that prāna is consciousness, knowledge, transcendence and transcendental bliss, undecaying, free from old age and death, the lord of all living entities and all planets and the supreme controller, this just confirms the transcendental nature of the jīva.

In short, when Indra says "I am prāṇa", he is not declaring his essential identity with the Supreme Brahman, but rather illustrating the importance of prāṇa within the finite sphere of life, as the vital air, maintainer of the body. Therefore, the Upaniṣad does not teach that prāṇa is Brahman, but rather that prāṇa is important within the conditioned world of the jīva. Since prāna is the source of life, it's not incorrect to equate the conditioned jīva with prāna, since the conditioned jīva is saguna and identifies with matter, but it is profoundly incorrect to equate prāna with the Supreme Brahman, which is nirguna and fully transcendental.

Yet another argument that can be offered is that in the Mundaka Upanisad (2.1.3) it is mentioned: etasmāj jāyate prāṇo (From this Brahman, prāna is born). How can prāṇa be Brahman if it is born from Brahman?

One could question why the Upaniṣad describes something material, like prāna, instead of discussing the absolute truth, but this is very common in the scriptures, to praise or emphasize a particular aspect of the material reality for a specific educational purpose. Therefore, the Upaniṣad does not teach that prāṇa is Brahman, but rather that prāṇa is important within the conditioned world of the jīva.

How can you answer this challenge?

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa