[Advaita-l] Tattvabodha of Adi Sankaracharya - 17

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

One correction in what I wrote in my earlier post.

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

On Thu, 23 Jul, 2020, 1:27 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>