After the past two lectures on the connection of breathing and the five prāṇas with the cognitive processes implied in the relation between the cognizer, object of cognition and the process of cognizing, I got an insight that wanted to share with the group. (It is a bit long, so thank you in advance if you get to the end.)

One way in which I have been able to make sense (if at all) of this very subtle, complex, and difficult topic is by relating it back to the Kauṣitaki Upaniṣad where Indra teaches Pratardana that in breathing in one sacrifices speech, and in speech one sacrifices the breath. Speech happens where there is someone to talk to, about something to talk about, someone who does the talking, and someone who does the listening. Each cognitive process associated with knowing the world and transcending it through several stages of bliss and breath can actually be experienced in the process of a dialogue.

In a dialogue, an authentic dialogue, there is a stage (like nijānanda) where the ego arises even before externalizing one’s thoughts into words. There is at least an intention to understand something which moves us to reach out with our words. To engage in dialogue, one must also know how to listen, be attentive, open, in full attention to that which will appear in conversation.

Then, “reaching out” to the object of cognition (prāṇa), we externalized the way we have grasped the object in words. We make them explicit, we label our perceptions, elaborate judgments, we conceptualize them. We breathe out and begin to articulate our understanding in any way possible and this stage would be like nirānanda.

Then, we need to breathe in (apāna), to be able to listen to the other perspective, to be able to see other aspects of the cognized object, we need to allow the object to present itself to our minds in order for the intellect to “grasp” it. In dialogue, we need to breathe in so that we can listen to the words of the other, to listen their perspective, to grasp it in its different mode of cognizing; this stage would be akin to parānanda.

Then, (ideally) we gather the multiplicity of objects, the different ways of cognizing an object, the various voices of speaking about an object and “mingle them” (samāna) in a kumbhaka where something like brahmānanda would be experienced. In a dialogue, pauses are important, they are moments of reflection about what has been said, from the multiple angles, and multiple voices. Kumbhaka is necessary for processing multiplicity and plurality.

Then the absorbing fire of udāna, which purifies the confusion that may arise in the discussion. It is that moment in a dialogue when you have been able to see something new, achieve a better understanding, letting go of things that do not hold any longer, yet acknowledge that they were there and might be there for others. This is a moment of “great understanding”, a stage I would say might resemble that of mahānanda.

Few times, but ideally, a dialogue would take us to that cognitive place where we can delve in the recognition of differences, in the embrace of various positions and their various reasons, and see them as finite expressions of the wholeness of reality, with pure clarity and luminosity, without letting the differences carry us away back into a fluctuating in-breath or out-breath. Here, both flows of prāṇa and apāna run equally through ida and pingala, through the realization and embrace of all possibilities. One could put it logically as the cognizing of: “P, not P, it is the case that P and not P, and it is not the case that P and not P”. I see this as a state similar to cidānanda.

Finally, when the dialogue allows us to transcend our limited knowledge and concepts, and we allow “that what is” to rest in the heart of pure acceptance, and pure observation, pure being, that would be something like jagadānanda.

I must admit that since the pandemic started, I have been having a hard time experiencing ānanda, primarily because in my experience, it has been very difficult to establish authentic dialogue with others about things that are of great importance to my life. Differences just seem unbridgeable. Today, when Acāryaji said “Totality requires the recognition of difference”, I realized that I might be actually stuck in just the first two stages of this prāṇic dialogue. I do believe that, in many areas the stage of today’s world has not even begun to express the possibility of a “social kumbhaka”, and that makes me feel very sad.

In studying this philosophy with Acharyaji and by being part of this community, I hope to be able to recognize that state of ānanda in very simple dialogical moments of my life. Perhaps I might just need to be able to see this prāṇic dialogue happening all the time, despite my judgements regarding the current state of the world.