वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

[SŪ. 2. 4 11.
462 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA ADH. 5.]
(We reply:) “no”, since the scriptural text: ‘ “I alone, dividing
myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3 ¹), “shows”
that the holding up of the body is the peculiar function of the vital-
breath.
Vedānta-kaustubha
If it be objected. Just as one can be a perceiver only if there be
some object to be perceived, so a thing may be an instrument only
if there be some function to be accomplished by it; and this is not
found. Hence the vital-breath cannot be a sense-organ Thus,
as the vital-breath is not a sense-organ, so if it be an instrument of the
individual soul, it is but a futile one,—
We reply: “No”. There is no such fault. “For,” i.e. since,
in order that the vital-breath may be serviceable as an instrument
of the individual soul, the holy Scripture “shows”, under the dialogue
among the sense-organs, that a purpose is served by the vital-breath
as well—one that cannot be served by the sense-organs,—viz. the
holding up of the body and the sense-organs: ‘The chief vital-breath
said to them: “Do not fall in delusion. It is I alone who, dividing
myself five-fold, support and hold the body” ’ (Praśna 2.3).
COMPARISON
Śaṁkara and Bhāskara
According to them the word “akaraṇatvāt” answers the prima
facie, viz. that if the vital-breath be an organ of the soul, then there
must be a sense-object for it, like colour for the eyes and so on. The
answer is that there need be no sense-object, since the vital-breath
is not an organ like the eyes and the rest. Still it is not devoid of
a function, the holding of the body being its special function.²
Rāmānuja, Śrīkaṇṭha and Baladeva
According to them, the word “akaraṇatvāt” means: “On account
of not having a function”. That is, no objection can be raised on
¹ Ś.
² Ś.B. 2.4.11, pp 662-63; Bh. B. 2.4.11, p. 148.