by Ken Coates
While it has to be recognized that the four goals of life as well as the four stages in the life cycle are a schematic and idealized versions of Hindu way of life their material and social concerns are also clear. Here one may speak of a contradiction between the radical rejection of phenomenal life as virtually worthless, if not downright evil, on the one hand (as we saw above) and on the other the practical down-to-earth organization and reproduction of life as part of a stable social order as indicated by these schematics. To some extent the gap between these two “worlds”, as it were, can be bridged by the notion of a mass and a virtuoso religiosity (Weber 1963, 174). It seems that for the masses moksha remains a “part-time” or end of life pursuit since the business of life must go on. On the other hand there are plenty of indications in the literature to suggest that a minority may seek enlightenment and liberation without becoming Householders (174). While there is a general presumption of marriage and children as a part of normal life, celibacy, asceticism and the renunciation of worldly existence – chiefly a domain of the virtuoso - has been valued highly in Hindu society and culture. Another way of looking at this “contradiction” is to distinguish between Classical Hinduism as a “doctrine of salvation” (Upanishads) and Hinduism in general as a religion serving the social and spiritual needs of people. As Vallee-Poussin (1917, 3) observes, unlike religions these disciplines of salvation are ‘made for ascetics only…they are purely personal or individualistic…unsocial and often antisocial: they deprecate and often prohibit marriage’ . Thus we read in Brihadaryanaka Upanishad “Wishing for that world (for Brahman) only, mendicants leave their homes….Knowing this, the people of old did not wish for offspring. What shall we do with offspring, they said, we who have this Self and this world (of Brahman)….. And they, having risen above the desire for sons, wealth, and new worlds, wander about as mendicants” (Max Muller 1884, 179-80).
The Nature of Moksha: In any case the goal of liberation can be pursued, albeit in different ways, by both the householder and the world-renouncing monk. And at least according to some of the Indian schools of philosophy, notably Advaita Vedanta, liberation can be attained during one’s lifetime. But how does one know when one has attained moksha ? An answer to this is that one “knows” this intuitively when one reaches the highest levels of consciousness. The realization, the deeply felt experience of the oneness of the Atman with the immanent Brahman authenticates this “knowledge” (Ross 1952, 21). Presumably the Jivanmukta, after attaining this state still goes about his life in the normal way but being free from desires he sees the world differently. Put simply he is “in the world but not of it”. In the eloquent prose of Hindu scriptures “as soon as the individual self has acquired the perfect immediate certainty that he is the universal Self, he no longer experiences doubt, desire or suffering. He still acts, as the wheel of the potter continues to revolve when the potter has ceased to turn it. Death at last, abolishes what no longer exists for him, the last appearance of duality” (Vallee-Poussin 1917, 28). Elsewhere it is asserted, “When desire ceases, the mortal becomes immortal; he attains Brahman on earth” (140). According to Advaita Vedanta, moksha is a state of pure being, pure consciousness and pure bliss, i.e. Satchitanada (Zaehner 1966, 76). However accounts of the state of moksha vary and one answer is that it is beyond the realm of thought and expression. With the subject-object distinction obliterated “it cannot be designated.” “It causes the phenomenal world to cease”(75). In the words of Gita the liberated man “Seeing himself in all things and all things in himself, he sees the same thing everywhere” (94). He is beyond pleasure and pain and beyond the sense of I’ and ‘mine’ and all the opposites (94). Knowing that his true being is outside space and time he conquers death (94). It is also assumed that with the realization of one’s true self one is also freed from the cycle of rebirth and redeath. One’s ‘accumulated karma is destroyed’ and one ‘does not acquire any fresh karma’.
What happens to the soul or the essential self after moksha ? Where does it go? Does individual identity cease or does it continue in some form? The answers to these questions are somewhat diverse. The position of the pantheist philosophies, adhered to largely by the Upanishads and such leading schools of thought as Advaita Vedanta and Samkhya, is that liberation ends the empirical or phenomenal self. According to Advaita the illusory duality of Atman & Brahman ceases with the realization that they are identical. The result is that the immortal soul returns to its pure being in a state of full consciousness and bliss. With Samkhya, the soul, freed from the body, returns to its own eternal self-reflective consciousness (Encyclopedia of Hinduism, 379). For the Nyaya-Vaisesika school the soul returns to a state of unconscious and indifferent pure existence, ‘like a stone’ (Lad 1967, 6). Unlike these pantheistic doctrines the theist philosophies, including the one elaborated in the Gita by Lord Krishna himself, teach that the liberated self survives. It is immortal and enjoys eternal bliss in the heavenly world of satisfied desires and undreamed of delights in the presence of Lord Krishna (Herman 1991, 118). In fact the Gita is somewhat ambiguous in that it also expounds the Upanishadic view of moksha, i.e. the absorption of the Atman into Brahman (118). In this case the devotee’s ego, personality, mind, memory and consciousness are all assimilated. According to the later polytheistic views Brahman can be personalized as god. After his death the devotee attains the realm of the god he worshipped and enjoys blissful communion with his deity ( 118-9). Clearly with the introduction of Bhakti yoga or devotion to a personal god as one of the paths to liberation it is not surprising that the devotee is rewarded with eternal presence in the proximity of his adored deity.
There seems to be a clear divide between the pantheistic and the theistic doctrines with respect to the post-moksha state of being. The former see the disappearance of the empirical self and the return of the immortal soul to its ground of being, free from all extraneous relations. The latter see the continuation of the self in some form or the other in the graceful presence of god. In all cases, however, one thing is certain. He who attains moksha is liberated from samsaric existence. He has secured his release from the recurring cycle of birth, decay, suffering and death.
To Summarize: According to classical Hindu beliefs, as articulated in the Upanishads and the Gita, existence in general and human existence in particular is fundamentally flawed. From the beginning to end, i.e. from birth to death, life involves suffering. Moreover everything in the phenomenal world is transitory - ephemeral and passing. Human consciousness or the soul finds itself ‘trapped’ in material existence and dragged through an endless cycle of birth, decay, old age and death with apparently no rhyme or reason and with no end to the process in sight. Moreover earthly existence was found wanting on both moral and metaphysical grounds. Immorality was rooted in the very instincts and desires that drive man’s existence while the impermanence and transitoriness of the world of phenomena deprived it of any metaphysical worth. Indeed at least one school of thought, viz. Advaita Vedanta, found the phenomenal world so outrageous as to suggest that it was unreal and illusory. The Maya or illusion involved was due to ignorance of true reality and Gnostic knowledge was the necessary cure.
The radical devaluation of the phenomenal world and its rejection was coupled with the quest for transcending existence and anchoring the essential self or the soul to a permanent and imperishable reality free of temporality and of all material exigencies and suffering. Belief in the existence of a ‘soul’ that is immortal and partakes of the absolute but inhabits the body led to ways and means of realizing the true nature of the immortal self and freeing it from its earthly bondage. This was the spiritual quest, which could be pursued in a variety of ways, leading to moksha or liberation. Clearly the ‘knowledge’ or experience of moksha was ultimately a mystical experience which the liberated individual could not communicate to others. And as for release from transmigration the knowledge that the liberated soul will not be reborn was a matter of faith for which there could be no external �
��proof’. Clearly the radical rejection of the world and the single-minded quest for liberation was meant for the few – the intellectuals and the religious virtuosi, those who found the world wanting – rather than the many.
For the masses the continuation of worldly existence through marriage and reproduction was enjoined as the normal way of life. However for the Householder too moksha remained the ultimate goal but it was to be pursued at the last stage of the life cycle after the individual had completed the ‘normal’ business of living. We should note that the concept of moksha or liberation had two aspects – one ‘negative’ and one ‘positive’. There was a great deal of unanimity about the former, i.e. what one was being liberated from but far less about the latter, i.e. what one was liberated to. Among pantheists, at least one school of thought equated liberation virtually with oblivion while others envisioned a peaceful, tranquil or joyful state of timeless consciousness for the liberated soul. Theists believed in a blissful state of union or communion with a personal god in a heavenly abode. As religious belief systems, all of them included a ‘spiritual’ dimension, the experience of a deeper or higher level of reality. The rejection of the phenomenal world of mundane existence and liberation from it did not mean an acceptance of nothingness. Rather a positive spin was put on moksha. Whether in this life or post-mortem, the apprehension of Brahman or the cosmic ground of being, the experience of a mystical state of consciousness, the ecstatic devotion to a personal god, an immortal heavenly existence – all these represented a higher level of ‘living’. Repudiation of the ordinary worldly existence was not to be equated with embracing nothingness.
It appears that the sacrifice and the hardships involved in the quest for liberation was to have its ‘reward’. For a religious doctrine it was difficult, if not impossible, to posit total annihilation or disappearance of the ‘self’ or the soul. As we shall see below even Buddhism, a religion which comes close to being atheistic also held out the promise of nirvana being a blissful state. Schopenhauer, who believed that his concept of the renunciation of the will resembled the Hindu and Buddhist notion of rejecting existence, cautioned that “We must not evade it, as the Indians do, by myths and meaningless words” but openly acknowledge that the end result is simply nothingness (Nicholls 1999, 175).
Buddhism and Nirvana
Buddhism grew out of the same Indian metaphysical soil as Classical Hinduism. The period in which Buddha, the former Prince Siddhartha, preached his doctrine of liberation, namely the 6th century BCE, was a period of great philosophical and religious ferment. Out of this ferment emerged two new religions, viz. Jainism & Buddhism. Although Buddhism died out in India it flourished abroad becoming one of the world religions. Schisms and various schools within Buddhism developed later, the main divide being between the Mahayana and the Hinayana or Theravada branches. The former opted for a mass religiosity which emphasized compassion and salvation for all rather than an ascetic, monk-centered religion of withdrawal seeking nirvana (Koller 1982, 164-7; Snelling 1991, Chs. 7, 9). However our concern here is with the early or Classical Buddhism, the one before the schism. As with Hinduism, we are mainly interested in Buddhist attitude to existence, its specification of the problematic of existence, as well as the nature of and the road to liberation.
Compared with the teachings of Classical Hinduism, expounded in the Upanishads and the Gita, Buddhism represents a more logical, coherent and systematic analysis of the problematic nature of existence and its solution. However it shares with Hinduism some key assumptions, notably the belief in samsara or the interminable cycle of rebirths, and karma causality. Moreover nirvana, its concept of liberation, is similar to the Hindu concept of moksha, at least in its key defining characteristic, viz. freedom from rebirth.
Buddha’s first sermon lays out the basic principles and the framework of his teaching in the form of Four Noble Truths: that suffering exists, that it has an identifiable cause, that this cause can be removed, and that it can be done by following the Eight-fold path. “Suffering I teach and the way out of suffering” was Buddha’s ringing declaration, the First Noble Truth. Clearly the fundamental feature of existence, for Buddha, is Dukkha or suffering. It is all-pervasive and ever-present. Dukkha has a wider connotation than suffering and includes not only pain but also sorrow, unhappiness, disappointment, regrets, worry, unease, a sense of malaise and similar negative states. Each living being seems to be in bondage to the sources of life’s suffering. How to break this bondage? This is the central problem the Buddha addresses and this leads on to the Second Noble Truth, i.e. the underlying cause of suffering . Buddha identifies it as Tanha (trishna in Sanskrit) or desire. Trishna literally means thirst, in short craving for worldly things and pleasures. This thirst seems natural to us. It is implanted in us as the will-to-live .But since it is the source of our suffering, and its endless prolongation through repeated births and deaths, it is this that we need to liberate ourselves from. But how? This leads to the Third Noble Truth. The cessation of suffering requires that we free ourselves completely from the bondage to desire and craving. And this is what the Fourth Noble truth is about. It sets out an eight-fold path leading to the conquest of desire and liberation from suffering and death. The path emphasizes right knowledge or understanding of the human condition, moral conduct and self-control, and meditation as the three principal means of overcoming life’s bondage. Each individual has to seek and win his own liberation in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings. The ultimate goal is nirvana or the extinction of the flame of desire, a state of being which ensures that the liberated one, the Arahat, will no longer be subject to rebirth (Koller 1982, Ch. 7; Snelling 1991, Ch.7).
The four Noble Truths: These truths present us with an outline of the Buddhist perspective on existence and the pathway to liberation. However we need to look at all four in some detail in order to grasp their meaning and implications. First and foremost, existence is seen by the Buddha essentially as suffering. Here, perhaps not surprisingly, The Buddha’s perception of life is echoed, in far away Greece, by Socrates who is credited with the remark “to live is to be sick for a long time”. And this medical metaphor is in fact also used by the Buddha. Suffering is likened to a disease for which the Buddha offers a diagnosis and a cure. Here is how the Buddha elaborates on the theme of suffering. “This, monks, is the Noble Truth of suffering, birth is suffering; decay is suffering ; illness is suffering; presence of objects we hate is suffering; separation from objects we love is suffering; not to obtain what we crave is suffering; In short, the five attachment groups are suffering” (we explain the meaning of the attachment groups later). And here is how he castigates birth, which ushers in our lifelong suffering: “Shame on this thing called birth”, for it brings in its train “decrepitude, disease and death”( Koller 1982, 141-2)). Clearly the evil of existence begins with birth (Dahiya 2008, 98).
But is the Buddhist perspective not entirely ‘one-sided’, in short a pessimistic view of life?’ How could the Sakyamuni arrive at this conclusion? As a former prince who led a sheltered and charmed life for the first 29 years of his life he must surely have known life’s many comforts and pleasures? He was married and had a young son. So he knew that alongside Dukkha or suffering there is also Sukha, or joy and happiness, in life. Indeed, he did recognize this side of life but considered these felicities as few and far between and, in any case, they were short-lived and transitory. They did not last. In fact for the Buddha the impermanence and the transitoriness of everything - a feature of phenomenal existence – is also an aspect of suffering. We want to hold on to what is dear to us yet change and dissolution is in the nature of things. The emphasis on suffering means that for the Buddha it constitutes the hallmark of existence (Snelling 1991, 52-3). Overall it is Dukkha or pain and suffering that is the central fact about life.
Elsewhere Buddhist doctrine points out three distinct marks of existence, viz. Dukkha or suffering as stated in the first Noble Truth; impermanence or the transitory and chan
geable nature of everything; and lastly the absence of a ‘self’ or essence in everything that exists. Thus in addition to the directly experienced pain and suffering, the impermanence or the unreliable and ephemeral nature of phenomena, and the absence of a ‘self’ or essence in everything devalue existence further (Snelling 1991, 64;Koller 1982, 146-8).
Let us go back to the five attachment groups mentioned in the first noble truth which are related to this lack of an essential self. The doctrine of attachment groups is meant to expose the delusion of an ‘I’ or ‘mine’, an ‘ego’, the sense of possession and individuality which is crucial for sustaining our craving and desire. The human being can be seen as comprising five groups of elements: the physical body, sensations and feelings, cognition, character traits and dispositions, and consciousness. These together constitute the ‘person’ or self. But the point is that each of these five factors is constantly changing. They are variable and ultimately perishable so that they cannot provide a solid basis on which to build a secure and satisfactory life. The statement that the five attachment groups are suffering refers to this fundamental reason why human life can never be ultimately satisfying. For apart from these five groups of traits and their interaction there is no ‘self’! Once we realize that over and above these variables there is ‘nothing’ else then we can be free of our sense of ego and the striving for worldly things. It is our attachment or clinging to these changing and impermanent entities that is both a source and a form of suffering.
We turn next to the second Noble Truth which is about desire or craving, the cause of our suffering. Here is what the Buddha has to say: “This, monks, is the Noble Truth concerning the origin of suffering: it originates in that grasping which causes the renewal of becomings (rebirths), is accompanied by sensual delights, seeking satisfaction now here, now there; the grasping for pleasures, the grasping for becoming (existence), the grasping for non-becoming (non-existence)” (Koller 1982, 135). The ‘non-becoming’ presumably refers to the desire for the non-existence of things, people and conditions and may also include the urge to suicide. Whatever form it takes it is this trishna or desire, this craving ‘that causes rebirth’ (Keown 1996, 52). It is about the instinctive will-to-live which drives us on to new lives and new experiences . Clearly this formulation strikes at the very root of our existence in so far as it traces back the cause of suffering to the innate will-to-live and the striving after the myriads of things that life has to offer. It is this thirst that needs to be quenched once and for all.
