latter. So,
for instance, in the case of the following words: 'He is to sacrifice
with the udbhid; he cuts the yupa; he makes the vedi.' Analogously we
conclude that the term pa/nk/ajana/h/, which, from the grammatical rule
quoted, is known to be a name, and which therefore demands a thing of
which it is the name, denotes the breath, the eye, and so on, which are
connected with it through their being mentioned in a complementary
passage.--Some commentators explain the word pa/nk/ajana/h/ to mean the
Gods, the Fathers, the Gandharvas, the Asuras, and the Rakshas. Others,
again, think that the four castes together with the Nishadas are meant.
Again, some scriptural passage (/Ri/g-veda Sa/m/h. VIII, 53, 7) speaks
of the tribe of 'the five-people,' meaning thereby the created beings in
general; and this latter explanation also might be applied to the
passage under discussion. The teacher (the Sutrakara), on the other
hand, aiming at showing that the passage does not refer to the
twenty-five categories of the Sa@nkhyas, declares that on the ground of
the complementary passage breath, &c. have to be understood.

Well, let it then be granted that the five-people mentioned in the
Madhyandina-text are breath, &c. since that text mentions food also (and
so makes up the number five). But how shall we interpret the
Ka/n/va-text which does not mention food (and thus altogether speaks of
four things only)?--To this question the next Sutra replies.

13. In the case of (the text of) some (the Ka/n/vas) where food is not
mentioned, (the number five is made full) by the light (mentioned in the
preceding mantra).

The Ka/n/va-text, although not mentioning food, makes up the full number
five, by the light mentioned in the mantra preceding that in which the
five-people are spoken of. That mantra describes the nature of Brahman
by saying, 'Him the gods worship as the light of lights.'--If it be
asked how it is accounted for that the light mentioned in both texts
equally is in one text to be employed for the explanation of the
five-people, and not in the other text; we reply that the reason lies in
the difference of the requirements. As the Madhyandinas meet in one and
the same mantra with breath and four other entities enabling them to
interpret the term, 'the five-people,' they are in no need of the light
mentioned in another mantra. The Ka/n/vas, on the other hand, cannot do
without the light. The case is analogous to that of the
Sho/d