गोविन्द भाष्य (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण - अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

jīva-mukhya-prāṇa-liṅgān neti cen nopāsya-traividhyād āśritatvād iha tad-yogāt
jīva—of the individual spirit soul; mukhya—the primary; prāṇa—living force;
liṅgāt—the signs; na—not; iti—thus; cet' if; na—not; upāsya—worshipable;
taividhyāt—because of being there; āśritatvāt—because of taking shelter; iha—here;
tat-yogāt—because of appropriateness.
If someone says the word "prāṇa" also refers to the individual spirit soul and
the primary living-force in addition to referring to Brahman, then I reply that such
an interpretation is not correct. If the word "prāṇa" referred to all three, then all
three would be worshipable. This view is not correct, because neither logic nor the
authority of scripture support it.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Someone may say that the natural features of the individual spirit soul and the
living-force are such that they are proper objects of worship. To this I reply: This
is not true. Why? For then there would be three objects of worship. When Indra
says, "Worship me as prāṇa," he uses only one sentence. The rules of rhetoric
demand that a sentence have only one correct interpretation, and therefore if we
say that the word prāṇa here refers to three different objects, we shall break that
rule. This is the true meaning: There are three possible ways to interpret the
meaning of prāṇa in this context: 1. Take all these passages, including what
directly mentions Brahman, as referring to the individual spirit soul and living-
force; 2. Take these passages as referring some to the individual soul and living-
force, and some to Brahman. and 3. Take these passages as all referring to
Brahman. The first possibility has already been clearly refuted, The second
possiblity is not very acceptable, for it recommends that there are three distinct
objects of worship. Śrīla Vyāsadeva says the third possibility is actually logical
because āśritatvāt (this view is supported by the statements of Vedic literature).
We may see that many passages in Vedic literature that seem to refer to the
individual spirit soul or the living force, in fact refer to Brahman.
If at this point someone were to object: Is it not true that in this passage the
natural sense of the words supports the interpretations of the individual spirit
soul and the living force?" I would reply by saying: In this passage the worship of
prāṇa is described as the most beneficial activity for the living entities. For this
reason the interpretation of the Supreme Brahman is logical. For this reason Śrīla
Vyāsadeva states in the sūtra, tad-yogāt (because this is logical).
Someone may then object: Is it not true that the scriptures explain that the
prāṇa and prajñā both reside within the body of the individual spirit soul, and also
leave that body together at the time of death? How is this possible if you say that
prāṇa means "Brahman"?
To this objection I reply: Brahman is present in the body of the individual spirit
soul in two ways: as kriyā-śakti (the potency of action), which is also known as