vital air may justly be designated as the intelligent Self; for
the former is of the nature of intelligence, and the latter (although
non-intelligent in itself) is the abode of other pra/n/as, viz. the
sense organs, which are the instruments of intelligence. Moreover, if
the word pra/n/a be taken to denote the individual soul as well as the
chief vital air, the pra/n/a and the intelligent Self may be spoken of
in two ways, either as being non-different on account of their mutual
concomitance, or as being different on account of their (essentially
different) individual character; and in these two different ways they
are actually spoken of in the two following passages, 'What is pra/n/a
that is praj/n/a, what is praj/n/a that is pra/n/a;' and, 'For together
do these two live in the body and together do they depart.' If, on the
other hand, pra/n/a denoted Brahman, what then could be different from
what? For these reasons pra/n/a does not denote Brahman, but either the
individual soul or the chief vital air or both.

All this argumentation, we reply, is wrong, 'on account of the
threefoldness of devout meditation.' Your interpretation would involve
the assumption of devout meditation of three different kinds, viz. on
the individual soul, on the chief vital air, and on Brahman. But it is
inappropriate to assume that a single sentence should enjoin three kinds
of devout meditation; and that all the passages about the pra/n/a really
constitute one single sentence (one syntactical whole) appears from the
beginning and the concluding part. In the beginning we have the clause
'Know me only,' followed by 'I am pra/n/a, the intelligent Self,
meditate on me as Life, as Immortality;' and in the end we read, 'And
that pra/n/a indeed is the intelligent Self, blessed, imperishable,
immortal.' The beginning and the concluding part are thus seen to be
similar, and we therefore must conclude that they refer to one and the
same matter. Nor can the characteristic mark of Brahman be so turned as
to be applied to something else; for the ten objects and the ten
subjects (subjective powers)[133] cannot rest on anything but Brahman.
Moreover, pra/n/a must denote Brahman 'on account of (that meaning)
being accepted,' i.e. because in the case of other passages where
characteristic marks of Brahman are mentioned the word pra/n/a is taken
in the sense of 'Brahman.' And another reason for assuming the passage
to refer to Brahman is that here also, i.e