Bhashya
भवतु नाम प्राणस्योपासनम्, न तु विशुद्ध्यादिगुणवत्ते-ति ; ननु स्याच्छ्रुतत्वात् ; न स्यात्, उपास्यत्वे स्तुत्यर्थत्वोप-पत्तेः ।न ; अविपरीतार्थप्रतिपत्तेः श्रेयःप्राप्त्युपपत्तेः, लोकव-त् ।यो ह्यविपरीत मर्थं प्रतिपद्यते लोके, स इष्टं प्राप्नोत्यनि-ष्टाद्वा निवर्तते, न विपरीतार्थप्रतिपत्त्या ; तथेहापि श्रौतश-ब्दजनितार्थप्रतिपत्तौ श्रेयःप्राप्तिरुपपन्ना, न विपर्यये ।नचोपासनार्थश्रुतशब्दोत्थविज्ञानविषयस्यायथार्थत्वे प्रमाणम-स्ति ।न च तद्विज्ञानस्यापवादः श्रूयते ।ततः श्रेयःप्राप्तिद-न, ऋगादिषु पृथिव्यादिदृष्टिदर्शनात् , विद्यमानपृथिव्यादि-वस्तुदृष्टीनामेव ऋगादिविषये प्रक्षेपदर्शनात् ।तस्मात्तत्सामा-न्यान्नामादिषु ब्रह्मादिदृष्टीनां विद्यमानब्रह्मादिविषयत्वसि-द्धिः ।एतेन प्रतिमाब्राह्मणादिषु विष्ण्वादिदेवपित्रादिबुद्धीनांच सत्यवस्तुविषयत्वसिद्धिः ।मुख्यापेक्षत्वाच्च गौणत्वस्य ;पञ्चाग्न्यादिषु चाग्नित्वादेर्गौणत्वान्मुख्याग्न्यादिसद्भाववत् ,नामादिषु ब्रह्मत्वस्य गौणत्वान्मुख्यब्रह्मसद्भावोपपत्तिः ॥
In plain words
Grant that prāṇa is meditated upon, but object that it does not truly possess qualities like purity. We answer: No, because scripture states them. You might argue that since prāṇa is an object of meditation, these descriptions are merely praise. We reply: No. In the world, a person gains what is desired and avoids harm by understanding things as they actually are, not by misunderstanding them. Similarly, the highest good comes from understanding scriptural words accurately, not through error. There is no proof that the objects of scriptural meditation are false, nor does scripture refute them. The objection that these are mere metaphors—like viewing earth in the Ṛk verses—fails because superimposing a concept requires an actually existing base. Just as secondary fire in the five-fire meditation presupposes real physical fire, so too, attributing Brahman-hood to name and other symbols, or worshipping Viṣṇu in images, proves the actual existence of supreme Brahman.
Close to the Sanskrit
Let it be granted that there is meditation on prāṇa, but not that it possesses qualities such as purity. To this we reply: No, because it is heard [in scripture]. If it be argued that being an object of meditation makes [these qualities] appropriate as mere praise—[we reply] no, because the apprehension of the non-contrary meaning brings the attainment of the highest good, just as in the world. For in the world, one who correctly apprehends a non-contrary meaning attains what is desired or turns away from the undesired, not by apprehending a contrary meaning. Thus here too, the attainment of the highest good is appropriate upon apprehending the meaning generated by scriptural words, not upon reversal. And there is no proof that the object of knowledge arising from scriptural words intended for meditation is unreal; nor is any refutation of that knowledge heard. Therefore, attainment of the highest good [follows]. [If it is argued that the qualities are unreal]—no, because of seeing the vision of earth and others in the Ṛk and other [mantras], seeing the projection of the visions of already existing objects such as earth onto the object of the Ṛk and others. Therefore, from that commonality, the establishment that the visions of Brahman and others in name and others have already existing Brahman and others as their object [is proven]. By this, the establishment that the conceptions of Viṣṇu, deities, ancestors, and others in idols, brāhmaṇas, and others have a true object [is also proven]. And because of the dependence of the secondary upon the primary; just as, in the five fires and others, because the state of being fire and others is secondary, there is the existence of primary fire and others, so too, because the Brahman-hood in name and others is secondary, the existence of primary Brahman is appropriate.