Musings on Moksha
Hinduism says that the four main aims of life are Kama, Artha, Dharma and Moksha. While I understand the first three, I have never quite been comfortable with the fourth one - or even how it affects us. I understand that we have kama, that we are at some level animals, driven by our desires, to lust, to procreate; I understand that we desire artha, to amass wealth or worldly material objects to satisfy us; I also understand that both kama and artha ought to be guided by Dharma, sense of righteousness, duty to ourselves, our fellow beings to Mother Nature, a sense of purpose, to guide our desires and control them they run amok and become insatiable. But moksha or liberation - how does that work? Is it even desirable …
August 12th, 2008 at 6:04 am
Every thing is maya or illusion till the moksha. Just like the existence and being are expressions of Brhman, the Universal Consciousness, maya is also an element of Brahman. Mr. Krishna in his International treatise on Personality Development ‘Bhagavad Gita’ categorically mentioned ‘mama maya duratyayaa’ maya is Mine, the Brahman.
You are not ready for moksha. Mr. Krishna asserted that ‘manushyaanaam sahasreshu’ one in thousands aspire for Liberation and one in such thousands deserves and attain moksha. HE also said ‘ ihaiva’ moksha can be attained in bloom of living .
August 14th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Moksha frightens me as I am attached to my individuality. I’m not ready for it yet.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I ponder…
Religious pandits and pujaris please comment either way as I write more out of a spiritual understanding rather then religious belief.
Moksha to the best of my belief is Mukti .. am I right? Please correct me if not.
What is mukti? The author talks of it being liberation etc.
Mukti can be liberation, but the word moksha/mukti has a wide ranging meaning to it so that it can be used to mean many different things if used in such context as that individual understands it to be, for eg:
1. An old very ill father or mother says during pain unbearable:
Bhagwaan haave mane muki dyo .. a darad haave nathi khamatu. (translated it means: God liberate me from this life .. this pain is now unbearable ..)
and that person wishes for welcoming death to relieve him of pain - ie. moksha/mukti?
another interpretation of it can possibly be:
2. A man/woman, having achieved everything in life that he/she ever wished for in financial and business terms but has lacked fulfillment of life now reaches the age of 70 for eg. and in good health.
The life span has been full of regret or sorrow, beit it an unhappy marriage, unworthy or unruly santaan (children), unacceptable sanskarik behaviour by husband/wife in the others view .. and so on. You get the picture.
That person sits there quietly reflecting, and wishes he could achive moksha or mukti for his/her pain.
So, pain is now a relative term in comparison to point 1, where here the wish is not for liberation/moksha by death .. what then?
Can moksha or mukti or liberation here mean, or perhaps be interpreted as being such that this person contemplates taking a “sanyas”, retreat into an ashram for eg. .. and therefore achieve moksha in some form?
How can anyone be ready for moksha? I dont know …
I ponder .. rather cumbersomely.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I have to agree with Pravin.
With the added comment:
Kama, Artha, Gyana, and Moksha are commonly thought of as a Maslovian hierarchy. But I suspect that an advaitist functional view of reality would not see it as such. We can each define each of these to our own ego: lust for the opposite sex, for a candy bar, for a massage; Wealth as power, money, land, financial security; Knowledge for mastery, interest, ved; Moksha as per Pravin. In effect, these are four driving forces in the prakrit of human nature. It is up to us to balance the four and thus define the meaning we impart onto our lives.
I do think Moksha is in its own category as the final common goal that underlies all the others. But most people are not ready for the life of a jivanmukti that can embrace such a totality of reality in every moment. Thus we, me included, “twitter and waste our hours in an off hand way.”
hariaum
August 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Thank you Navin.
The composition of your writings is so deep such that I, and perhaps many here find it difficult, or even fail to understand and therefore follow you line of though.
For eg. you say:
“Kama, Artha, Gyana, and Moksha are commonly thought of as a Maslovian hierarchy. But I suspect that an advaitist functional view of reality would not see it as such..”
I do not understand .. and it would be helpful for all here if you compose in plain everyday English and when you use words such as, Karma (deeds), artha (meaning), Gyana (knowledge), Maslovian .. what does this mean? “.. advaitist functional view ” .. what does this mean, leterally and in the context in which you have used it?
Not all here have the depth of your religious knowledge .. and we could use a little help from you in simplifying your writings to “everyday English” so we try to understand the depth of your thoughts.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The last line of this article spoils it for me, “But moksha or liberation - how does that work? Is it even desirable …”
Of course it’s desirable. What alternative is there?
>> is it desirable to live a ‘bad’ life doing the wrong things? Well it could certainly be a very enjoyable life but our conscience would know that we were doing is wrong and at the cost of harm to others.
All religions, Hinduism not excepted have a degree of blind faith attached to them, you simply cannot expect to have all the answers spelt out in black and white for you. Work towards bettering yourself as a hindu and as a person …or don’t. It’s a conscious choice.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
kama: commonly translated as lust, often sexual in nature.
artha: commonly translated as wealth, usually material.
gyana: knowledge, usually of tat sat.
Maslov: psychologist that introduced a pyrimid of needs viz: physiological needs (food, water, sex, sleep…), safety needs (personal safety, employment, property…), love/belongingness needs (friendship, family..), self esteem needs (confidence, achievement, respect, status..), and self actualization (morality, creativity…) Maslov felt that a person needs to move through the list in that direction: food first, then safety, then love, then ego development, then realization of a greater truth. Maslov is commonly used in psychological and business literature as ways of understanding reward motivation of individuals.
Thus one could argue in a “Maslovian hierarchy” that one needs to meet kama needs, then artha needs, then gyana needs, and finally moksha needs. Indeed the Maslov’s categories fit will into this more ancient structure understanding human needs.
However, an advaitist, really has problems with such structures as they reflect more prakrit than purusha. As such they should be understood as part of the dual nature of things, not the united nature of being. Thus, a functioning advaitist must collapse the categories: moksha is the underlying desire; it can be expressed in kama (tantric practices), artha (karma yoga), gyana (study and seeking), but must be finally lived in moksha itself. But living in moksha itself requires a heroic effort of redefining self in every moment. This requires a lot of energy and spiritual power. Until we have that, we just assume we are the same person we were yesterday and go on living with ego attachment.
As to the context, I know of only one: Tat Sat. We must, ergo, act with kama, artha, and gyana to develop moksha for ourselves and those for whom we care (ultimately realizing that we care for the totality of reality). Thus we praise sexuality, worship wealth, encourage debate, and seek moksha (all tempered with the Gita that teaches the bounds: detachment and renunciation).
I’ve said nothing new, I apologize. I could be wrong, most likely I am.
hariaum
September 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I enjoy reading Navin’s views since the clarity of his thoughts are so educative.
In this post of his he writes
quote:
“however advaitist, really has problems with such sturctures as they reflect more
prakrit than purusha. As such they should be understood as part of the dual nature of things, not the united nature of being………………………………
………… but must finally lived in moksha itself. But living in moksha itself requrie a heroic effort of redefining self in every moment. This requires a lot of energy and spiritual power….”
While I am not an authority on advaita, I wonder if the thoughts expressed by Navin reflect the ground reality.
May be we mis-understand the situation? One need to go thru every stage in life and when one goes thru those steps, - the process of going thru the step prepares - educates - and thus qualifies the person to move to the next step. And as a normal human being, with partial knowledge and a lot of ignorance, I work to fructify my desires. Once I am satisfied with the Kama and Artha, then I have no more interest in those, but still my mind cannot be inactive and so it turns its enquiry towards “gyana”. The Gyana leads one to the understanding and awareness that Aham Brahma Asmi or Tat Tvam Asi.
When one gains this knowledge or gets *freedom* from the ignorance that was covering all thru, that is the stage of Moksha = TOTAL FREEDOM
One who gains this knowledge, is such a person bothered about anything more in this life?
I wonder if advaita has any problem with that at all. The problem is for the human being who has partial knowledge. But then the solution to that lies in only working further to gain the knowledge - until one is clear about it. Till then it is only one more level of our education.
I wonder if my thoughts are more of misunderstandings and if so, it will be nice to listen how and why it is more misunderstandings so that I could correct myself by understanding.
enjoy
September 9th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The transient ego form feels itself to evolve. But it is the realization that Tat tvam asi, that Krishna is the field and the knower of the field, that all diversity (dvaita) rests within an indivisible Brahman that is the source of Satva.
As a lion I engage in killing. As a plant I engage in creating oxygen. As a stone I engage in tamas. So as a human I engage in lust, wealth, and knowledge. But as I lose I in surrender to Tat, all these things (and categories) pass away.
Though Janak was enlightened, he lived in a castle, enjoyed the company of friends, ran a state… It is not the outward renunciate but the realized/inward renunciate that can come to advaita.
From a relativistic point of view (mrtyurloka) there is motion, from an absolute point of view (of eternal truths) the apparent motion is merely a reflection of an unchanging satva (amratam, jyotir).
It would certainly be good to hear from someone enlightened on the subject (if they will bother with the likes of us).
hariaum
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 am
As far as my reading goes Moksha, (mentioned in Geeta), Mukti and Nirvana are same. It is something that every human should live for and is a pre-requisit to uniting with our creator.
To achieve Nirvana/Moksha there is a simple process mentioned in the scriptures. The process is following a desciplinned path of Yogas every day; Bhakti Yoga (yoga of devotion to our creator), Dhyana Yoga of meditaion (meditating upon our creator), Gyana Yoga (yoga of continuously acquiring knowledge about our universe by reading, writing, information gathering), and Karma Yoga (yoga of taking positive actions). This process in various degrees is to be followed every day of ones life. If looked into this process poistively, common sense will tell, it will give us a peaceful, wiser, truthfull, more positive and knowledgeable life. This is Hindu way of living and an incentive towards achieving Nirvana/Moksha.