Prana = Spirit = Kundalini?

Spirituality
#1

[QUOTE=Asuri;40179]
Also, in my view, the “cosmic energy”, prana is analogous to the Spirit in Christianity.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=core789;40265]What Christains( invariably) call " being filled with the Holy Spririt" does indeed sound rather like Mother Kundalini Shakti,awakening or stirring.It makes sense that reilgious folk devoted to spiritual realities by giving themselves to a higher force or agency are allowing any divine intelligence there may be( of course believing,having the faith obviously must help) to grow, from within of course. I think they may well be talking about or experiencing the same phenomenon if you analyse at it from a scientific perspective, examine the condtions that allow it to airse, a clear mind , a single thought- that of God or your ishta/object of devotion, the letting go attitude, the mania or accompanying bhakti or emotionally charged spiritual energy.

When you see folk in evangelical churches , rasing their hands,praying,chanting in tongues they are actually practicing the highest form of yoga(or you might say an advanced sort,those that are devoted that is) , a kind of bhakti yoga from this pespective.Youu could say they are giving themselves to God, a higher agency, a spiritual potential really… The principles and dynamcs appear similar (or same-y), the beliefs,associated culture and ritual obviously may differ.

Of course,Whatever else they may do when they leave the church is also part of their yoga,their personal 'yoke with God, the divine" . It could be compared to a ‘yoga’ class, a conventional one i mean, on some level or from that perspective.[/QUOTE]

I thought I would start a new thread for this, to keep the other thread from getting too far off topic.

#2

I hate to disagree with you, since you are agreeing with me. In fact I do agree with the main thrust of your post. But I said (a) prana = spirit, you said, (b) spirit = kundalini, so then does © prana = kundalini? The answer is no, they are really different concepts. So if © is incorrect, then either (a) or (b) must be incorrect, or both (a) and (b) are incorrect. Does anybody care to express an opinion or knowledge?

I think this illustrates the perils of using these concepts that originate in another culture.

#3

Also I caution against using the images of Evangelical Christians singing, swaying, “speaking in tongues” and “being filled with the Holy Spirit”. Many Christians pray simply “Give us this day our daily bread…”. That daily bread is more like what I had in mind when I said that prana is analogous to spirit.

#4

Peril is not in the cultural difference. Peril is in wanting to see complex things simplified like an equation. For example, when Einstein’s elaborate mathematical model is reduced to e=mc2, it appears suddenly ‘yours and mine’. Peril is also in our bringing down multi-dimensional phenomena into a single dimension that our lmited perceptibility can take.

None of the three equations is fully correct. If, this whole perceived universe and each object belonging to it is an interplay of the Spirit and the Matter(Purusha and Prakriti), the Spirit is present in everything. Thus, Spirit is ‘present’ in both prana and kundalini, but not equal to either.

Prana is Cosmic Energy. At the highest dimension it exists in an absolute form in the most subtle state where it is also Universal Mind. While Cosmic Energy degenerates into 5 different vayus inside any object, Universal Mind gives birth to more & more gross matter and gets entangled and hence morphed as individual mind. So, what is One in the highest dimension, becomes many and degenerated in the lower dimensions.

However, things at the lower level have a potential to be pure and potent again, given the circumstances. Kundalini is this potential pure energy that remains unmanifest and inactive at muladhara chakra. This chakra is designed to generate energy by fusion since birth and carry that energy through sushumna nadi to activate and sustain rest of the chakras up the spinal column. When the spiritual practices make this possible, kundalini is manifest and active energy. Parallel to it, spiritual purification process makes vayus as pure as prana and they combine and rise up in the body helping kundalini’s ascent.

So, in my view, prana and kundalini, in their purest form are the same, at the highest level and ultimately when anything is separated from matter it is the Spirit. But in the lower/ gross dimensions and through most of our spiritual journey, the three remain distinct. I would love to learn how this is seen in other streams of thought.

#5

Hi Asuri,

Kundalini shakti is the energy potential.It encapsualtes the physics, the dynamics, the interplay of (characteristically) psycho-sexual energy originating at the store-house of energy located at the base of the pelvis or muldhara chakra, coiled up supposedly like a serpent 3 and a half times,waiting patiently to rise ,break through the obstructions via shushumna awakening and find free passage as it ascends up to the crown,then matures and refines, & eventually cavorting with Shiva & finding fruition in union.It is a kind of holy communion.

Shiva is pure bliss consciousness, the witness who needs shakti to awaken each other’s potential. So there is no shakti without shiva,observer(or spirit, essence) without observed (this body). When folk relate the feelings of being filled with the Holy Spirit i can’t help at the least draw analogies like you say between them recounting principally experiences of the ecstatic bliss feeling that accompany devotional mania or religious experiences.But you need a guiding force to guide shakti awaken her otherwise in some sense it is just prana,lifeless and without spirit or at least a body as we know it to inhabit it.

There is metaphor and literal conceptualisation, and both are equally valid and in some sense are both at the same time, i.e regarding the concept of kundalini or any of these other concepts…Also i think you can explain this phenomena, Holy spirit,kundalini shakti and her union with shiva, the witness or spirit or certainly do a decent & pretty respectable job of it scientifically.

#6

^<repeat post>^

#7

@Suhas

I understand! And I agree! A light bulb went on in my head! Who Hoo!

#8

I think Suhas has explained it the best so far.

In the Upanishads it also says Brahman is Prana. This has confused some people, because they understand prana to be just 5 main subtle forces(vayu) operating in the subtle body. How then can they be Brahman? Similarly, in the Rigveda it extolls Indra as the ultimate, then Rudra, then Agni, then Surya, then Savitur. To the unitiated, this can be confusing how all these separate entities can be the best.

Then we have the whole confusion over what Kundalini is, who the mother is and how sometimes the Adishakti is also said to be Brahman, the best of the best. The Shakta worship her as the ultimate principle.

The simple answer to this is all of reality is just one substance ultimately which is called Brahman in Vedic language. This simply means that the ultimate substance is an infinite and pure consciousness. It makes everything out of itself. Prana is Brahman. Indra is Brahman. Rudra is Brahman. Agni is Brahman. Shakti is Brahman. There is no such thing as separate entities, it is all Brahman.

Prana and Kundalini are just different degrees of manifestation of Brahman. Prana is a coarser and more diversified form, where Kundalini is the pure cosmic form. When more and more prana enters our body, our body becomes filled with the cosmic energy. There comes a point when all of the potential energy that can fill us enters us, and this is what is known as Kundalini in Vedic language. This is what all mystics describe as that great feeling of infinite bliss, the great light, being filled with the spirit. So I can see the direct correlation with the Christian notion of holy spirit.

As we see reality from an objective 3D consciousness we are conditioned to see reality as made up of a diverse plurality of objects. We are forced by language to create various categories, sub categories, classes and sub classes to name everything we can. None of these entities really exist though, they exist only in the language map we create. The innuit culture for example has 20 different words for snow and we only have one word for snow, does this mean that there are 19 different of snow we don’t know. No, it is still the same substance, but it has been classified differently for practical purposes.

If you ever watch one of the cynamatics videos online it is amazing to see how just by intoning different sound frequencies how the original material(various materials are used sand, water, plastic, iron filings) scattered on a plate start to produce various shapes, designs and formations. To the onlooker it seems like various objects are present and they would each classify it differently, in reality there is only one substance being vibrated at different frequencies to give the illusion of plurality. Similarly, the Vedic understanding is that all of this existence is Brahman only, but existing at different frequencies to give the illusion of plurality.

#9

[quote=Surya Deva;40390]
If you ever watch one of the cynamatics videos online it is amazing to see how just by intoning different sound frequencies how the original material(various materials are used sand, water, plastic, iron filings) scattered on a plate start to produce various shapes, designs and formations. To the onlooker it seems like various objects are present and they would each classify it differently, in reality there is only one substance being vibrated at different frequencies to give the illusion of plurality.[/quote]

I saw that on u-tube; it was pretty interesting.Grains of sand resting on a plate and how they responded to sound.It reminded me of what likely occurs on the subtle bodies during deep mantra meditation.Deep organic patterns begin to emerge,flow and change shape… The kashmir shaivists called this movement or vibration of consciousness [I]spanda[/I], the animating principle of the universe.It makes the idea that you can indeed create your own reality rather profound & potentially true.

So the theory is the universe is dynamic rather than static according to Kashmir Shaivism… So everything in the universe may come into being, into existence ,then dissolves back through an act of consciousness which is creatively shaping it as ongoing dynamic.Kundalini or the movement of the Holyy Spirit is surely like that. We set up just the right conditions and extraordinary things can and do happen.But it’s It’s all Brahmin…lol,one & the same ,just different manifestations.

Similarly, the Vedic understanding is that all of this existence is Brahman only, but existing at different frequencies to give the illusion of plurality.
SO when one ,i.e consciousness, the self, merges with Brahmin ,one effectively wakes up from the dream of differentiation ,of separation, of duality & plurality.

.I liked your point in another post that the word ‘matter’ , in yoga ,had a manifold meaning philosphically from the gross to the most subtle.We usually think of matter as something hard & concrete,ie. physical.Like you say people use different languages and all too often it’s the conceptulisations of limited-mind based conditiong or language,that can al too often get in the way of understanding.

Here is one of those cynamatic videos that demonstrates how sound/spanda/vibrations animates matter.

#10

saw that on u-tube; it was pretty interesting.Grains of sand resting on a plate and how they responded to sound.It reminded me of what likely occurs on the subtle bodies during deep mantra meditation.Deep organic patterns begin to emerge,flow and change shape…

The original consciousness is like the substance on the metal plate prior to being vibrated. There is just a uniform substance. As soon as the vibration begins, this uniform substance then appears to diversify, forming a multitude of forms. Studies into infants shows that before we acquire language we do not see as many forms as we see later on with language acquired. An infant does not know the difference between feet and toes for instance and hand, arm and fingers. The more we become locked in objective 3D consciousness through the agency of language the more we begin to differentiate forms and create a multiplicity of objects, which really only exist insofar as we name them as such. Similarly, this entire creation that we observe, is nothing more than just consciousness expressed in multiple forms.

Another Vedic term you maybe familiar with is tanmatras these are minute consciousness particles that construct sense perception. There is a flowing of these between the subject and the object before any sensory perception happens. In other words everything that you see is quite literally emanating from consciousness. It begins there only. The illusion of an individual consciousness giving the illusion of multiplicity of observers is simply because there are multiple bodies. But not multiple bodies with multiple consciousness, but multiple bodies with the same consciousness. There is only one observer but several windows through which this observer sees.

SO when one ,i.e consciousness, the self, merges with Brahmin ,one effectively wakes up from the dream of differentiation ,of separation, of duality & plurality.

Yep, then we realise our avidya that the illusion of objective existence is as errornous as the illusion that there are 20 different shows. If we look along a horizontal axis we see an objective existence, but if we look along a vertical axis, we begin to realise that all matter can ultimately be reduced to one substance. Cells to molecules to atoms to subatomic particles to quarks to elemental forces to quanta to superstrings. If this reduction is carried on we will eventually find a mental stuff precedes them all and finally consciousness as the source.

#11

Yes, it’s very easy to explain away as it’s all Brahman, it’s all the same. I suppose to the idealist, that’s cool. It allows you to go on your merry way and feel superior, but ultimately its not very useful. I may say, I feel hungry. Then you say, well, you’re not really hungry, it’s just the appearance of hunger. It’s all illusion and only Brahman is real. To that, I say no, dammit, I’m hungry and I’m going to eat something.

#12

Asuri,

Just take Brahman out of the equation perhaps? Substitute with Holy Spirit?

#13

[QUOTE=Asuri;40414]Yes, it’s very easy to explain away as it’s all Brahman, it’s all the same. I suppose to the idealist, that’s cool. It allows you to go on your merry way and feel superior, but ultimately its not very useful. I may say, I feel hungry. Then you say, well, you’re not really hungry, it’s just the appearance of hunger. It’s all illusion and only Brahman is real. To that, I say no, dammit, I’m hungry and I’m going to eat something.[/QUOTE]

This results from a 3D consciousness. This is when you are identified with your body and because of the identification you identify with its needs as well. Like playing a computer game, and identifying with the needs of the character. If the character is low on life energy, you quickly find something to nourish a character(a medical pack lying somewhere in the game world) but that nourishment the character receives does nothing for you. Simlarly, the soul does not need anything, because it is already complete. It is already an infinite source of life energy, of truth, of love, of wisdom. This is why the more you start to come out of 3D consciousness, the more you needs for food, water and other physical needs begin to reduce. Several living yogis are testimant to this.

The realization of Brahman is ultimately the most useful thing we can ever do, because then we will never have to depend on an external source again for truth, love, wisdom, life energy, power.

#14

Now that I’ve had a little something to eat, I will deal with the business at hand. The peril that I spoke of earlier is in using terms that are poorly defined and originating in a different culture, are generally not well understood in this one. That allows any charlatan to define them as he pleases. Prana is cosmic energy? That is a poor definition. Where does it come from? What Veda or Upanishad says that prana is cosmic energy? What Upanishad says that prana is Brahman?

Samkhya defines prana as: The five beginning with Prana, (familiarly known as) Airs, are the common modifications of the three Internal Instruments. SPS II.31. The Samkhya Karika explains: Of the three, the modifications are their respective characteristics; these are uncommon. The common modification of the (Internal) Instruments is the five, beginning with Prana, known as the Airs.

Through these definitions we can begin to see the connection between citta and prana. This is expressed clearly in the Upanishads: " Chitta has two causes, Vasanas and (Prana) Vayu. If one of them is controlled, then both are controlled.", and “In any place where the wind moves, the mind also wavers.”. In Christianity, wind is also used as a metaphor for the spirit. Kundalini is never described in this way.

We also see in the Upanishads the usefulness of the concept of Prana. By controlling it, we also control the modifications of chitta, which is fundamental to yoga. In some recent threads prana has been discussed as having a sort of energizing power, which we can inspire through an act of will. This is similar to the notion of praying to the Father for our daily bread. Daily bread is explained not as physical food that we eat, but sort of a spiritual food. Unfortunately though, I haven’t found this notion of prana as an energizing power or food in the Vedic texts.

#15

The information you requested: http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_prashna_upanishad_4.asp

]Prana is born of the Self. Like a man and his shadow, the Self and Prana are inseparable. Prana enters the body at birth, that the desires of the mind, continuing from past lives, may be fulfilled.” (Prashna Upanishad 3:3)

Just as the cosmos is an extension of the Consciousness that is Brahman, in the same way our individual prana is an extension of our Self (atman). It is inseparable from the Self because it is the Self. This is the authentic non-duality (advaita) of the upanishads, not a negation or denial of either Prakriti or prana. Seeing them as separate from Spirit, and therefore dual, is the error–not acknowledging their intimate reality.

As a king employs officials to rule over different portions of his kingdom, so Prana associates with himself four other Pranas, each a portion of himself and each assigned a separate function.” (Prashna Upanishad 3:4) We usually speak of “five pranas,” but there is really only pure Prana and its four modalities.

Cosmic prana

Since each of us is a reflection of the universe, there is a cosmic pranic arrangement also, so the sage continues:

[i]“The sun is the Prana of the universe. It rises to help the Prana in the eye of man to see. The power of earth maintains the Apana in man. The ether between the sun and the earth is the Samana, and the all-pervading air is the Vyana.

“The Udana is fire, and therefore he whose bodily heat has gone out dies, after which his senses are absorbed in the mind, and he is born again. Whatever his thought at the moment of death, this it is that unites a man with Prana, who in turn, uniting himself with Udana and with the Self, leads the man to be reborn in the world he merits.” (Prashna Upanishad 3:8-10)[/i]

The knowing of Prana: immortality

The importance of knowing the functions of Prana by direct experience–through yoga practice–is summed up by the sage, saying:

[i]“The progeny of him who knows Prana as I have revealed him to you is never cut off; and he himself becomes immortal.

“It was said of old: One who knows the Prana–whence he has his source, how he enters the body, how he lives there after dividing himself five-fold, what are his inner workings—such an one attains to immortality, yea, even to immortality.” (Prashna Upanishad 3:11, 12)[/i]

For, as the other upanishads declare: Prana is Brahman.

#16

As already mentioned when one is in 3D consciousness one has an objective consciousness and a tendency to create via language carious categories, subcategories, classes and sub classes of entities that only exist insofar as name. Similarly, we can classify 5 different types of Prana(others later classified 6-7) but this really is just one prana taking on 5 different functions, so for practical purposes we enumerate 5. The same can be done for kind of taxonomy. The classification of the body into heart, brain, lungs, stomach is simply classifying the one body into various separate parts. The classification of organisms into mammals, reptiles, insects, fish is once again just classifying one thing into several things. The classification of elements into hydrogen, helium, lithium etc is one again classifying one matter into several things.

We do this all the time through the agency of language creating more and more categories and classes and begin to inhabit the linguistic realities we create, believing it to be made of many things, when in reality everything is just one substance.

Unity comes before multiplicity. In the history of the universe we as humans have come right at the end when things have multiplied into a universe that seems to be made up of many things stars, planets, asteroids, moons, plants, minerals, animals, humans, societies, countries, races, chairs and tables. However, if one looks at the vertical axis, one soon realises that none of these things actually really exist beyond the names of them. Ultimately they are just the same substance undergoing varous modifications.

#17

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;40425]
We do this all the time through the agency of language creating more and more categories and classes and begin to inhabit the linguistic realities we create, believing it to be made of many things, when in reality everything is just one substance.
[/QUOTE]

If that were true, then when we die, the whole world would vanish along with us. In my opinion, actually believing in what you have said here is quite delusional. So is believing that you have transcended the “3-D consciousness”, which allows you to feel yourself to be superior to everyone.

#18

[QUOTE=lotusgirl;40416]Asuri,

Just take Brahman out of the equation perhaps? Substitute with Holy Spirit?[/QUOTE]

I think that the problem here again is with the definition of terms. Suhas Tambe identified Holy Spirit with the concept of Brahman. I do not define spirit as Brahman, I conceive of it as closer to the concept of prana.

I would also like to point out that, although the Hindus tend to speak of Brahman as a foregone conclusion, the concept is not universally accepted. Samkhya, for example, does not accept the concept of Brahman. The argument against it is that it is a concept that is found only in Scriptures and that there does not exist any evidence to support it.

#19

I should point out that none of the information provided by Surya Deva contains a definition of prana.

#20

Hey Folks,

Prana = force, which has dimension, while kundalini is specific to its orientation (origin and direction), so no, they are not the same, yet they are intertwined.

The “Holy Spirit,” you could say, is the force of prana combined with an ascension principle. Are these part of the Holy Trinity? What’s missing?

Om = God, The Father
Prana = The Son (the resonance of Om)
Kundalini = Holy Spirit/Ghost (earth to heaven ascension priniple).

Does there exist anything outside of these three for anyone? Yes, there are also miracles, such as love and yoga, which hold them together in union.

Om Namah Sivaya
siva