"When there was neither aught nor naught, when darkness was covering darkness, what existed then? That Akasha existed without motion." The physical motion of the Prana was stopped, but it existed all the same. Says Vivekananda in his lecture on Prana. Prana is the manifestation. Akash is the canvas - the Universal Consciousness - which manifests the creation. Now, Vasistha has another take on this relationship. To him Prana is no different than the wave of the ocean and Akash is the ocean. Is it different? Is the movement in Akash separate from Akash itself? Why do I bring this up? I have seen time and again that we confuse between Prana and Chetna. Chetna, conceptually, is NOT the same as Prana. Being manifested does not necessarily lend itself to Enlightenment or Spiritual freedom ("chetna"). In fact, I would argue that one that is manifested or defined can never experience Chetna! In a lot of the Vedic and Hindu sects - as well as other religions and philosophies - the professed ideologies have completely missed this distinction. On the one hand, many talk of monotheism and deny "forms" for God - throwing around reasons that God defined by form* is a God limited and then also that He is the ultimate consciousness and is infinite but in all this completely miss the linkage between infinity and consciousness and how form is the result of definition itself!! * Well, to me form or no-form is the most nonsensical and useless argument.. for as long as you have "defined" a God, you have confined "It" - even assigning a gender is definition.. but then (borrowing from Ghalib) Dil ke behlane ko Ghalib yeh "form" ka khayal accha hai! Contextualising is the first step to Form - ask any artist or a poet! Ask a sculptor if he can differentiate between his imagination and his sculpture? Read more