[Advaita-l] Tattvabodha of Adi Sankaracharya - 17

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Kartik ji

Manas and brain are related but not the same. The latter is the physical
correlate of the sUxma entity called manas.

Similarly prANa and air we breathe are related. That is my current
understanding.



On Thu, 23 Jul, 2020, 3:09 AM S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>  Raghav Kumar Dwivedula raghavkumar00 at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Namaste Kartik ji
> >
>
> Namaste.
>
> > In the tradition the five aspects of PrANa, viz., prANa, apAna, vyAna,
> > samAna and udAna are sUxma meaning not directly perceptible by the senses
> > being part of the rajo-amshaH of the five tanmatras which are subtle.
> >
>
>
>
> If the word "prANa" in the above passage is taken to be anything other than
> the standard meaning of "breathing", then the words like "rechaka"
> (exhalation),
> "kumbhaka" (retention) or "pUraka" (inhalation) don't make any sense.
>

Well, the primary meaning of prANa is as I understand it, in the sUxma
sense. But anything sUxma needs an Ashraya or vehicle/receptacle whereby it
(prANa) finds expression. In that sense we observe that the sthUla element
vAyu is (usually but not always ) the vehicle/receptacle for prANa. So by
upachAra, we can use the word prANa to refer to the sthUla element vAyu or
air we breathe.

 Also note that prANa is derived from all the five tanmatras (and there is
no mention of any preponderance of vAyu in it because prANa obtains before
any grossification) whereas the air we breathe or vAyu is by grossification
of the vAyu tanmatra (plus portions of the others).

 The idea that prANa need not be identified with air is also because prANa
can have as it's Ashraya food, water and even sunlight. (I am unable to
recollect the reference to this but am reasonably sure I remember reading
that even the food we eat has prANa - this is independent of the presence
of 'air' in that food.)

The modern translation of prANa as breathwork or breathing control is a
misnomer because we are only using breath to control/regulate the subtle
entity/energy called prANa.

And as you too mentioned, the reference to vyAna, udAna etc., also being
aspects of prANa is reconcilable only if we deduce that prANa is some
subtle energy carried by air, food etc. Even the physical entity called
energy (in joules) is not synonymous with prANa.

One line of thought is that the physical counterpart of prANa is
negative-entropy or 'neg-ent'.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

On a different note, prANAyama etc., is as you said, beneficial in
manonigraha no matter what the theory of prANa is.


Om
Raghav











>
>
> > The air we breathe on the other hand is regarded as a sthUla bhUta (gross
> > element) and is derived by grossification of the tanmatras.
> >
> > So I understand the five prANa-s to be the five powers which keep the
> body
> > physiology ticking in an intelligent, integrated way.
> >
>
> There could be a secondary meaning of the word "prANa" according to
> context,
> meaning "Life-force". IMHO, it's the same prANa that one inhales imparting
> energy to other parts of the body. To give a modern analogy, the oxygen
> that
> is inhaled into the lungs is absorbed by the blood and transferred to other
> parts of the body offering nourishment. In this sense, it is a
> "life-force".
>
> > Such a working of the body cannot be fully explained using the old
> physics
> > which imagined atoms etc., to be like billiard balls following
> > well-understood laws. But unfortunately most doctors and medical
> > researchers today are still stuck with 19th century physics in their
> > assumption that simple laws of molecular chemistry can explain away
> > everything about the body.
> >
> > The traditional postulate of prANa in sAMkhya and vedAnta darshanas is
> the
> > first major divergence that vedic traditions have with modern science.
> When
> > it comes to the other still more inner koshas of manas, buddhi etc., they
> > are even more divergent with modern reductionistic understanding of
> nature
> > and the human being.
> >
> > Since prANa represents that first point of divergence, I was examining
> the
> > idea. You may note that the next significant divergence is the denial of
> > the need to postulate anything like chidAbhAsa. In other words, for
> > reductionist science there is nothing special about the physical
> > configuration of the brain and the nerves etc., which make the physical
> > entity capable of manifesting chidAbhAsa while a chair or a stone cannot
> do
> > so. That distinction is denied by science while bhagavatpAda accepts that
> > while both the human organism and a stone are both (jaDa) matter, still,
> > just as a mirror/polished surface has a special capacity to reflect
> light,
> > the human upAdhi although material, still has something special about it
> > that allows it to catch the reflection of all-pervading Chit.
> >
>
> [..]
>
> Regards,
> Kartik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>