|
|
 |
|
Please join in the discussion at the Message Board!
(Total activity, all pages, all sites, in page reloads, since 9/21/2000)
Click here to visit my search engine!
(10-24-2000)
Maggie: can u help me with my Religions of India paper ... I am in a bind
Sitaram: what is topic of paper...
Maggie: the question is : Would you say that the history of Indian Religions - Vedic Hinduism, Upanisadic Hinduism and Janism - can be understood as a battle between dharma and moksa
Sitaram: off top of my head... I will say to you.. that the way question is phrased.... it is a very clever, cutsy question.. which some teacher/professor has thought up.. to challenge you.. but it does not reflect the way Hinduism would think of things...
Sitaram: but..you must roll with he punches... and go with what teacher asks.. without criticizing...
Sitaram: moksha , of course is ultimate goal... it means liberation/salvation... mukti...... no more rebirth... freedom from the cycle of birth/death/rebirth...
Sitaram: dharma has to do with order/righteousness..... it is the degree of our adherence to righteousness.... which determines good/bad karma... and eventually... gains us mukti or liberation...
Sitaram: so... there cannot be "battle"... dharma is means to an end.. the end is moksha...
Maggie: the question : would you say that the history of Indian religions - Vedic Hinduism, Upanisadic Hinduism and Janism - can be understood as a battle between dharma and moksa?
Sitaram: highest principle of Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma , or "eternal Righteousness")... is this statement "Ahimsa is highest form of dharma"
Sitaram: which means..... "doing no harm (non violence) is highest form of righteousness)....
Sitaram: so.... from Jain point of view... a Jain monk strives to do least amount of harm... wearing mask not to inhale insects... using feather wisk to protect insects... etc etc.....
Sitaram: when inflow of bad karma is stopped.... and when all previous "bad karma" ripens..... (through misfortunes, sufferings)...then MOKsha, (no more rebirth) is achieved....
Sitaram: so...how can this be a "battle".... since dharma is means to the end of moksha (liberation) ?
Maggie: "can a Jain achieve dharma or do they not believe in dharma?
Sitaram: all religions accept notion of "dharma".... right actions, right behavior... and also.. word can mean "duty"...
Sitaram: in Bhagavad Gita... Lord Krishna says to Arjuna, "Better to do your OWN DHARMA, (I.E. what is meant for YOU in this current lifetime)... do your OWN dharma, even if imperfectly... better than to do the dharma of ANOTHER to perfection...
Sitaram: meaning... if your dharma is to be a soldier (or garbage man)... dont yearn to have dharma of movie star, or sports star....
Sitaram: most modern Jains consider themselves a "part" of Hinduism... and vice versa.... other Hindus consider Jains hindu...
Sitaram: am I making any sense to you?
Maggie: I understand the basic concept of dharma and moksha but what I just came to find out a little while ago is that my professor wants us to define dharma to vedic hinduism, moksha to upanisadic hinduism and moksha to Jainism
Maggie: yeah you are
Maggie: I understand
Sitaram: vedas came FIRST... rig sam yajur... artha... 4 vedas...
Sitaram: upanisads are more or less commentaries on vedas... coming afterwards....
Sitaram: Jain is sort of apart.... some feel Jain is most ancient continuously practiced religion... other feel it is Saivite (worship of Lord Shiva)...
Sitaram: actually... your professor has asked a challenging question...
Maggie: I had written an excellent paper but a friend of mine had written a similar one and the professor said our angle is all wrong
Maggie: Yes I am realizing that now
Sitaram: when is paper due (dont say tomorrow)
Maggie: no, tuesday
Maggie: tuesday night time
Sitaram: how can dharma and moksha... be at odds ???? how can they "battle"..... that is not clear to me
Sitaram: Lord Krsna says... "every time Dharma declines, and Adarma increases,... I INCARNATE MYSELF and enter into the material world... to fight injustice...
Maggie: I misinterpreted the questions as well
Sitaram: so.. there.. in hinduism... god himself takes human form to battle adharma.... and restore dharma
Maggie: how long are you going to be online for?
Sitaram: so... hmmm... since in human terms... MOKSHA.. MEANS "reabsorption of jiva/soul into bramhajyoti or divine light,.. and no more rebirth"....
Sitaram: ergo..... ADHARMA... causes REVERSE!!!!
Maggie: moksha is liberation therefore no more rebirth
Sitaram: the brahmajyota.... leaves the godhead... AND TAKES HUMAN FORM
Sitaram: YOU GET MY POINT...
Sitaram: you see relationship... dharma for humans least to ...union with divine... leaving material form.... but ADHARMA causes divine to leave formless... and take form...
Sitaram: to me that is profound equation... profound observation... I never thought of this before
Maggie: I have to begin working on the paper, are you going to be online for a while?
Sitaram: not certain... if not online... email everything to sitaram6465@hotmail.com... I can work on this tomorrow.. I am free... (i think)
Sitaram: do my best anyway...
Maggie: thank you very much
Sitaram: but what I have given you right here should be of some significance
Maggie: you have been very helpful
Sitaram: ok... do my best...
Maggie: I will definitely contact you
Sitaram: note url to my website...
Maggie: ok
Maggie: thank you
Sitaram: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425
Sitaram: many good ideas there...
Maggie: I will check it out
Sitaram: what is your religion?
Maggie: I am catholic
Sitaram: or your parents/ancestors
Sitaram: ok... catholic..
Sitaram: you will like website...
Sitaram: nice page there on "mother theresa"
Maggie: I will definitely go see it, my aunt is a nun and I will forward it to her
Sitaram: there are some controversial pages there.
Sitaram: might upset a nun
Sitaram: you read first... maybe just cut and paste certain pages...
Sitaram: I do some nasty battles there with fundamentalist christians and muslims
Sitaram: use search engines....
Maggie: are you a professor at what school?
Sitaram: no... I am self taught... but I have devoted entire life to study religions of world..
Sitaram: what you find at my large website.. you can not find anywhere else in world...
Sitaram: not to brag... but simply a fact
Sitaram: you will see
Maggie: ok
Sitaram: some things come straight from God... no university necessary
Sitaram: no diploma or paper necessary... simply soul +++++++++++++++
TIME IS RUNNING SHORT... PAPER IS DUE... HERE IS LATEST THOUGHTS/FEEDBACK....
================
This morning's dialogue with student:
Maggie: I am reading your emails
Sitaram: I should explain something in journalist's posts.....
DWAITA (meaning "TWO") denotes religions in which GOD is DIFFERENT from human soul (worshipped is SEPARATE from worshipper).... while ADWAITA(meaning "NOT TWO")
Sitaram: adwaita (monistic belief).. is that God is NON DIFFERENT from soul (consciousness).... (worshipped is non different from worshipper)
Sitaram: it gets complicated...
Maggie: yes I can see
Maggie: when I signed up for this class a once a week 3 hour class I did not think it was going to be this hard
Maggie: I emailed my profess and he responded to me
Sitaram: so.. HER point was... that MY point about Krishna, Gita... is valid point for DWAITA.... but not necessarily for VEDANTA (MONISM, adwaita)
Maggie: do you want to read what I wrote and asked him?
Sitaram: sure... send me everything pertinent.. email to sitaram6465@hotmail.com
Sitaram: dont hesitate to email any thought or notes... and I will try to give feedback...
Maggie: my question is in the bottom of the email
Sitaram: what nationality/religion is the professor (just curious)
Maggie: he is white, I think italian
Maggie: but he got his masters in india
Sitaram: interesting!
Maggie: he lived there for quite some time as well
=========
The professor explained:
Where would you find moksa in the Vedas? Are they seeking
liberation from samsara? Do they even have a concept of
samsara? When you get to the Upanisads and to Jainism then you
might want to discuss not only moksa but also dharma but
clearly both of those systems emphasize moksa. Each makes
accommodations to dharma in terms of the 4 aims of life and
the life of the laity but the key issues in both are
directed toward moksa. If you can figure some other way to
present this material then be my guest.
Student's question to professor for further clarification:
I need your guidance in writing
this paper. I was
under the impression that we had to discuss Vedic
Hinduism, Upanisadic
Hinduism and Jainism and how it is a battle between
dharma and moksa for each
one. I was completing my paper in the library and ran
into Sara from the
class, we were exchanging information and she told me
that the angle that I
am was going at is the angle you advised her not to
take. Sara told me that
each religion had to be defined as either moksa or
dharma, is that correct?
I would just like to reconfirm before I toss my essay and
begin a new one.
Please Respond to me As Soon As Possible or call me
because I also have to
study for this exam.
===============
my reply to student
<< take. Sara told me that
> each religion had to be defined as either moksa or
dharma, is that correct?
>>
Some thoughts from Sitaram......
A jain monk is the epitome, final state before moksha..... in Digambra (sky clad/naked) sect..... one must wait many rebirths before a human birth... and then must wait until they have a MALE birth in Jain family... so they may take monastic vows..... (women must wait for male rebirth...no female nuns)..... SVETASAMBRA(WHITE clad/not naked)... they do have female nuns....
anyway... jain monk is final stage... and is embodiment of AHIMSA, non violence... which mainly involves NON-ACTION, abstaining from things that create karma.....
this is in contrast to advice of Lord Krishna to Arjuna (a kshatriya warrior) to PURSUE HIS SVA-DHARMA (warrior duty) BY MEANS OF ACTION...but to offer the fruits of action to God,... and not say "I am the doer".....
So... perhaps in this sense... Jain ahimsa (karma avoidance).... is "at war" with the dharma concept of ACTION....
WE MAY ALSO compare this to Chinese Taoist and Zen concept of "action through inaction" (or WU-WEI).
============
feedback/comments from Indian Hindu Journalist:
The professor's question is :
<< Would you say that the history of Indian Religions - Vedic Hinduism, Upanisadic Hinduism and Janism - can be understood as a battle between dharma and moksa ? >>
Sitaram, I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as you, in fact perhaps my mercury is way too low -- because, my first response is that the worthy Professor responsible for phrasing this question is Full of It, and I dont mean Hindu philosophy.
He begins the question asking about the HISTORY of those Indian religions, suggesting he wants you to describe a certain sequence of evolution in thinking, then he talks about some nonexistent "Battle" between dharma and moksha suggesting some sort of struggle between these two concepts for preeminence.
What a poorly phrased question, probably to allow maximum latitude for fabrication from his students! Perhaps he perceives a conflict over what to pursue as an ideal or an end goal whether it should be dharma or moksha?
I think there may be in some western minds a slight confusion between DHARMA (the law of righteousness) and KARMA (action, resulting in reaction, consequences.) The right karma within the parameters of dharma leads to moksha.
The Vedic concept of dharma is that it is a constant, undying and immutable cosmic law. It is the INTERPRETATION of Dharma that is subjective. This concept both includes and transcends morality in the western sense of the word. I wrote this in a book review I did for an Indian publication...some day I might share it with you. I went on to say that the characters of Bheeshma and Yudishtira in the Mahabharata represent one type of dharmic individual bound to a very rigid interpretation of moral constraints, while Krishna presents a more pragmatic view of dharma to equip individuals with the discrimination to handle real-life dilemmas. It has to be STRESSED that this does not imply a sort of "anything goes" attitude.
It's been ages since I read these works and so I hesitate to pretend to scholarliness...these are just my impressions based on my interpretation, which may be subjective. The only thing I can say with conviction is that the question doesn't make sense! Perhaps you should advise your friend to put aside her texts for a bit and do some research instead on what her Professor wants to hear from his students!!
=========
more journalist feedback:
<<
Sitaram: moksha , of course is ultimate goal... it means liberation/salvation... mukti...... no more rebirth... freedom from the cycle of birth/death/rebirth...
Sitaram: dharma has to do with order/righteousness..... it is the degree of our adherence to righteousness.... which determines good/bad karma... and eventually... gains us mukti or liberation...
Sitaram: so... there cannot be "battle"... dharma is means to an end.. the end is moksha... >>
YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH SUMMED IT UP RIGHT THERE.
=====================
third journalist feedback email:
< Sitaram: so.. there.. in hindusim... god himself takes human form to battle adharma.... and restore dharma Sitaram: so... hmmm... since in human terms... MOKSHA.. MEANS "reabsorption of jiva/soul into bramhajyoti or divine light,.. and no more rebirth".... Sitaram: ergo..... ADHARMA... causes REVERSE!!!! Sitaram: the brahmajyota.... leaves the godhead... AND TAKES HUMAN FORM Sitaram: YOU GET MY POINT... Sitaram: you see relationship... dharma for humans least to ...union with divine... leaving material form.... but ADHARMA causes divine to leave formless... and take form... Sitaram: to me that is profound equation... profound observation... I never thought of this before >> Sitaram, two comments-- one, you are way ahead of that professor, I bet this is NOT the line of thinking he expects or possibly can even fathom. two, the reasoning you describe is from a dualistic perspective, and as such is only part of hinduism and does not speak for the whole of hinduism. from "Dancing with Shiva" (by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami) ...
page 593
The primary goal of the Jains is becoming a Paramatman, a perfected soul. This is accomplished when all layers of Karma, which is views as a substance, are removed, leading the soul to rise to the ceiling of the universe, from darkness to light, where, beyond the Gods and all currents of transmigration, the soul abides forever in the solitary bliss of moksha. Moksha is defined in Jainism as liberation, self-unity and integration, pure aloneness and endless calm, freedom from action and desire, freedom from karma and rebirth. Moksha is attainable in this world or at the time of death. When it is reached, man has fulfilled his destiny as the man-God (Sitaram interjects: compare, cf, Greek "Theanthropos"/man-god.... St. Athanasius "God became man so that man might become god"). For the Jains there is no creator God and, therefor, no communion with Him. The nature of the soul is pure consciousness, power, bliss and omniscience.
========== from Veda and Torah by Barbara A. Holdrege
pg 29 ch 1:
The rcs are limited (parimita), the samans are limited, and the yajuses are limited, but of the Word (brahman) there is no end. - Taittiriya Samhita VII.3.1.4
....corpus of Vedic mantras that has been preserved by the brahmanical lineages is represented as only a limited manifestation of the unlimited, eternal reality of Veda.
.... the Veda is described as the Word (brahman), which is the essence of Brahman, the ultimate reality, and is at times designated more specifically as Sabda-brahman (literally, "word-Brahman") [Sitaram interjects: Logos, Holy Spirit, Word become Flesh]
...Veda is totality of all knowledge....
...Brahmanas , which form part of the karma-kanda, the section of Vedas pertaining to action , focus on the sacrificial rituals that are to be performed in order to regenerate and maintain the relative creation. [SITARam, Compare this with Jewish old testament concept that the world is preserved from moment to moment for the sake of the righteous few... just as Sodom would have been spared "for the sake of 10 righteous men")]
....Upanisadic speculations focus primarily on the ultimate reality - generally termed brahman or atman (self) - that is the source not only of creation but of the creator principle himself, and thus the relationship of the Veda to Brahman-Atman becomes a paramount concern in the Upanisads.
[sitaram speculates: .... so from these passages... perhaps one can say that in Vedas.... through the action/karma of sacrifice/mantra/sound.... one preserves world/universe/creation ... and perhaps merit/puniya is built up...... in contrast to Upanisads.... where Jnani/knowledge takes precedence over karma/action/puja/sacrifice/mantra .... and it is vedantic REALIZATION of non-difference of soul and God which pierces through illusion of maya and achieves moksha.....
we may also compare with dwaita and vishisthdwaita (semi dualism where self approaches as close as one pleases to God, without becoming identical)... the prayer of Lord Chaitanya...."I do not ask for wealth or enjoyments... but only birth after birth to serve at Your Lotus Feet, even though my head be crushed..." so this prayer for perpetual Bhakti/service .... is a different goal from Mukti/Moksha/Liberation and nirvana of no more rebirth.....]
====================== Sitaram,
Read your dialogues closely and with great interest. I also continue to visit your website (which I think is exceptional) and I continue to learn from it.
Now, regarding the question above, of a 'battle' between 'dharma' and 'moksa', at first glance, my reaction was similar to yours and I found no 'battle' to speak of, since, as you say, dharma is a means to moksa, i.e. a means to an end.
But the notion of 'means to an end,' reminds me of the old 'school boy' debate for and against the proposition: "The end is more important than the means." One can argue for this proposition and justify (for instance) unethical means to achieve a desired end; one may also argue against it and maintain (say) that the means to an end is as (or even more) important than the desired end.
There's a slim chance that the professor (above) is trying to frame this tussle (Does the end justify the means?) in a Hindu 'subsoil' or context. [Just a thought; I hasten to acknowledge that such context transfer, if at all that is what this is, is not clean, at least as the question is posed.]
A related aside:
'Dharma' and 'moksa' are applicable (with interesting results) to regimes not dealing with such things as 'Absolute' and 'Ultimate.' For instance, as an adult, I no longer long for the red fire truck I wanted so badly as a four year old. I might say I have attained 'fire truck moksa' or liberation from the desire for the red fire truck. The notion can be extended to all our other desires or fads, retained or discarded.
kannan
+++++++
====== There was indeed a battle between dharma and moksha. That battle was fought between people who follow Purva Mimangsha and people who follow Vedanta. The Mimangshakas believe that everybody should live their lives according to dharma i.e. Vedic injunction. The ultimate goal of life is to enjoy pleasures in heaven which can only be obtained by following dharma. The Vedantists do not accept such a view. They believe that dharma is merely the means and Moksha is the goal. Jainas also have Moksha as their goal. You can learn about this "battle" from Sankara's commentary on Brahmasutra and Gita.
============== What you have here looks very good......
It is interesting to look at the Hymn of Purusha,.... the castes evolving from the body of Purusha, and compare it with the Christian teaching that the "members" of the Church are "the BODY of Christ", and also St. Paul's famous passage about "gifts differing", how each person is given different gifts. This "gifts differing" evolved into they Myers-Briggs personality test. which measures people by FOUR different criteria (four "castes"), extrovert-introvert, thinking-sensing,judging-perceiving....hmmm I cant think of the rest, perhaps im mistaken... but you see the analogy.
(student writes):
I think that my first 2 paragraphs are ok. I need help with Jainism. I haven't proofed them yet. it is 5 am and I will proof later on after I take a nap. if you have time can you take a look at it and point out my errors???
Vedic Hinduism can be understood as a yearning to achieve Dharma, which means upholding social order. The practice of Dharma in Vedic Hinduism is illustrated in the Hymn to Purusha. The Hymn to Purusha discusses how man was evolved and how each being has a social order and how each being has a social standing. Dividing Purusha into different portions created the world. The human body discussed in Purusha coincides with the caste order; Purusha can be interpreted as the higher caste being the upper body and the lower body being the lower caste. The mouth becomes the Brahman, the Brahman is the highest class in the caste, and the mouth is situated at the top of the body. The two arms become the Rajanya who are known as the Warriors. The two thighs become the Vaishyas, they are known as the lower caste. Lastly, the Sudras were born of the two feet; the Sudras are known as the Untouchables they are the lowest in the caste system. The moon was born of the mind; it can be related to the mind as the ability to produce knowledge. The creation of the universe upholds social order by creating ranks among the Vedic Hindus, if there were equality there would be no social order amongst the people. The Brahmans, who are the priests are respected and protected by the Kshitryas who are the warriors, who are supplied by the Merchants, who provide work for the Laborers, lastly there are the Sudras, the Untouchables who are the lowest in the caste system and are not allowed to intermix with the others. Without Dharma, the ability to maintain social order, there would chaos. If there weren't someone directing another there would not be a morally livable society. Their ultimate goal of life is to enjoy the pleasures in heaven, which can only be achieved by mukti through good karma.
Upanisadic Hinduism can be understood as the battle of being able to attain Mosksa through understanding Dharma. The Katha Upanishad discusses the account of a father gives his young son to death, the son Nachiketa, encounters the God of Death, Yama. Nachiketa is given 3 wishes, his first wish is for his father know that he is doing well, his second wish was to learn the fire sacrifice, upon proper completion the sacrifice was named after him, The Nachiketa Sacrifice. His third wish was to learn the secret of immortality. Yama, refused to teach him the secret of immortality and offered him wealth, longevity, and animals which are known as Artha. Nachiketa, was also offered maidens to please him which are known as Kama. He was also offered society under an orderly manner known as Dharma. Nachiketa, refused Yamas three offers because they are temporary, they do not last and will not lead to immortality. Yama, surprised by Nachiketa rejection began teaching him the secret of immortality. Artha, Kama, and Dharma all lead the soul to be reborn. Moksha, is the liberation of all constraints which comes when the decision to abandon Artha, Kama, and Dharma are complete. Yama teaches Nachiketa there is the apparent self and the real self. The real self is what provides the knowledge in achieving Moksha. Nachiketa, was freed from impurities and death because he was the student that rejected pleasures of life to obtain immortality.
Jainism is understood as the desire to reach Moksha. Moksha, is the liberation of all constraints. Liberation of all constraints can be seen in the passage titled Sutrakrtanga 1.1.1.1-5, knowing what binds the soul and breaking free from bondage attempts to achieve Moksha. If possessions in life are grasped they will not lead to Dharma. Murder by your hand or anyone else is bad Karma and rebirth will occur and the process of achieving Moksha will be longer.
========================= Jain Philosophy - Part 1
Here is an excerpt from "Jain Philosophy Historical Outline" by Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publisher 54 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi 110055 first printing 1976
Part IV, "A Comparative Study", pg. 187
"The Jain concept of MOKSHA and the Buddhist concept of NIRVANA appear to have derived their main impulses from the Samkhya idea of liberation. World is full of suffering and to get rid of (mukti) all suffering is the summum bonum of our life (apavarga or mukti). These two Samkhya ideas must have contributed something to the development of the corresponding Buddhist and Jain ideas. In the Samkhya the cause of suffering is attributed to ignorance, and hence freedom from suffering is to be attained through right knowledge of reality, which comes from the knowledge of distinction (vivekajnana) between the self and not-self. All pleasures and pains belong to the mind-body complex, which acts or causes to act. The soul is quite different from this complex, a passive spectator, a transcendent subject whose very nature is pure consciousness, freedom, eternity and immortality. The attainment of liberation means the clear recognition of the self as a reality which is beyond time and space, mind and body, and hence essentially free, eternal and immortal.
Likewise Jain atheism also seems to have been substantiated by Samkhya atheism. According to the Samkhya, God as an eternal and immutable self cannot be the cause of the world. God cannot guid or control Parkrti. To create the world or to control Prakrti cannot be the end of God's own, because a perfect being cannot have any unfulfilled desires and unattained ends. The belief in God is inconsistent with the distinctive reality and immortality of individual selves. Perception and inference do not prove God. The Samkhya proceeds on the principle that the product is none other than the material cause in a definite stage of evolution and that the preceding stages are to be inferred from that which lies open before us. By this means a first principle is finally reached, which is of the nature of cause only. This is Parkrti, the primordial matter, from which the universe is evolved in a regular course. The primordial matter moved by the laws of motion inherent within it transforms itself into the world. Hence it is redundant to admit the existence of God. The assumption of God is thus ontologically irrelevant and logically repulsive because it is unproved.
=========== page 188 -
Jainism and Yoga
The twenty five principles of the Samkhya are accepted by the Yoga. Pantanjali systematised the conceptions of the Yoga under the framework of the metaphysics of the Samkhya. Excepting for the admission of God, Yoga is practically the same as the later Samkhya. Yoga is thus called "Samkhya with God". The samkhya affirms that the existence of an eternal God cannot be established by proof. The eternal existence of the Purusas is inconsistent with the infinity and creatorship of God. Prakrti evolves into the world by coming into relationship with Purusa, but the Samkhya does not clearly and categorically explain how this relationship is brought about. The Yoga school says that this is brought about by the agency of God. The concept of God is thus an extraneous graft on the Yoga system.
Frankly speaking, although included in the six systems of Indian philosophy, the Yoga has nothing to do with the philosophical speculations. It is logical to look upon Yoga as essentially as certain ancient practices rather than any specific philosophy. The practices are in fact immensely old. These take us back to the primitive times, in the ecstatic rites and magical practices of the prehistoric peoples for acquiring supernatural powers through the most strenuous methods. That these were prevalent as early as the third millennium BC has been proved by the Harappan stone-statues and pictures depicted on the seals. In course of time these practices became the floating possessions, as it were, of all sorts of religious sects and even philosophical systems. This primitive inheritance was moulded in accordance with subsequent religious doctrines and philosophical conceptions. As for the methods and means of Yoga, the Yoga Sutra mentions the following eight Yoganas: yama (restraint), niyama (discipline), asana (sitting posture), pranayama (breath-control), pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses), dharana (attention), dhyana(meditation) and samadhi(concentration). The supposed experience resulting from these Yoga practices was able to influence the adherents of different religion-philosophical schools.
In Jain tradition it is said that lord Mahavira devoted himself for long twelve years chiefly to the Yogic practices, and the canonical works of Jainism attach great importance to the Yogangas, i.e. the components of Yoga. The Jain doctrine of Karma has something common with its Yoga conception. Karma in Yoga is divided into four classes (1) Sukla or white (punya, those that produce happiness), (2) Krsna or black (papa, those that produce sorrow), (3) Sukla-krsna (ordinary actions, partly virtuous and partly vicious) and (4) Asukla-krsna (those inner acts of self-abnegation and meditation which are devoid of any fruits as pleasures and pains). All external actions involve some sins, for it is difficult to work in the world and avoid taking lives of insects. All Karmas proceed from the five fold afflictions (Klesas), namely, avidya, asmita, raga, dvesa and abhinivesa. The karmas performed in the present life generally accumulate and make it possible for an individual to suffer and enjoy the fruits thereof. The Karma of the present life determines the particular kind of future birth, the period of life and the painful and joyful experiences destined for that life. The influence of some form of Yoga system on the disciplinary codes of the Jains has been suggested by Jacobi. He has shown that a few sutras of Umasvati are directly inspired from similar verses occurring in Pantanjali's Yoga-sutra. In connection with Samvara or stoppage we come across the Jain insistence on the gutti or control of the mind, speech and body. This is possible by refraining from samrambha, samarambha and arambha. These denote the stages of the preparation and the performance of forbidden thinking, speaking and acting. The tenfold monastic morality (dharma) and the twelve pessimistic reflections, conceived by Umasvati, have a close bearing on the Yoga precepts. Details of Jain Yogic practices are furnished by Schubring by which the aspirant can withdraw himself from his surrounding, reach the state of indifference towards al that the five senses offer suppress the four passions, avoid displeasing and promote pleasing activities of the inner sense, speech and body and finally raise himself to the resting-place secluded from all worldly dealings and temptations.
The influence of the Yoga on Jain philosophy can also clearly be observed in the conception of transcendental perceptioin. This transcendental perception is named differently in different systems. In the Samkhya, Nyay-Vaisesika and Buddhist systems it is know as Yogi-prataksya (i.e. Yogic perception) or Yogi-Jnana (i.e. Yogic knowledge) and is supposed to be born as a result of competence acquired through Yogic practices. In Jain philosophy, the Agamic, i.e. earlier or canonical, tradition insists that transcendental perception alone should be treated as direct perception to which category it places the Avadhi, manahparyaya and kevala jnanas. Later Jain logicians however attempted to bring empirical perception under the category of Pratyaksa. In any case, the conception of Yogic perception, indeterminate as well as determinate, has some bearing on the Jain avadhi-darsana and Kevala-darsana which posit a type of cognition arising independently of sense-object contact on account of Yoga or special competence of soul (visista-atma-sakti).
================== page 191 Jainism and Mimamsa
The mimamsa occupies a unique position in Indian philosophical systems. Like the Yoga, the Mimamsa is also an inheritance of primitive culture, of primitive rituals and ceremonies designed to influence the course of nature in favour of a fruitful and happy human existence. The aim of the Mimamsaka philosophers twas to revive the undifferentiated pre-class collective life as the recondition for the development and efficacy of primitive magical beliefs and rituals. That is why it upholds the aspects of Vedic ritualism, supplies a philosophical justification of the beliefs on which this ritualism depended and gives a methodology of interpretation with the help of which these could be properly performed. The Mimamsaka insistence on the infallibility and authority of the Vedas is in fact nothing but a wholehearted regard to the inherited traditional knowledge of the past of which the Vedas are the symbol.
It appears that the original purpose of the Mimamsa as well as of Jainism and Buddhism was the same - to revive the primitive way of life, - simple, unsophisticated and collective, - as the way out of the crisis of class society. But while Jainism and Buddhism, being disgusted with the corrupt practices of the advanced and sophisticated sacrificial cults and rituals made a total denunciation of all these, the Mimamsa attempted to revive their original form and connect them with the original values and purposes for which they stood in the days of yore. Unfortunately most of the modern scholars- even great scholars like Max Muller, Keith or Dadhakrishnan - have missed this point, as a result of which they have been baffled with the inherent puzzles of the Mimamsa doctrine.
The greatest puzzle is Mimamsa atheism which is in common with Jainism and BUddhism. How can a system which has based itself on the Vedas become atheistic? The mimsakas themselves answer this question by saying that they are only concerned with the rituals of the Vedas to be performed according to the proper rules which contain eternal truth and not with any other motive. The primitive magical basis of the Vedic rituals is sufficiently clear which has been demonstrated by all competent Vedic scholars. THis magical basis, in spite of the grafting upon the primitive rituals the later class-interest of the priests, has not been completely stamped out. In primitive magic there is no room for a supreme being, an omniscient and omnipotent God. It rests on the notion that BY CREATING AN ILLUSION of the reality you can CONTROL THE REALITY. By performing rituals, mainly in the form of the act of miming, nature can be so influenced as to serve your purpose. No supernatural intervention is needed. The clue to everything about Mimamsa, including atheism, is therefore to be sought in the facts underlying primitive magic.
The premises of Jain atheism are broadly the same as those of Mimamsa atheism. Sabara's argument for the rejection of God is simply that there is no evidence of his existence. Sense perception does not reveal God and the other sources of knowledge are after all based upon sense-perception. In spite of all their differences, both Kumarila and Prabhakara, violently argue that the conception of God is ontologically irrelevant and logically repulsive. While dealing with Jain atheism we have already the occasion to refer to the antitheistic argument of the Mimamsakas, and there is no need of repeating them once again. Kumarila made a delightful fun of the internal inconsistencies involved in the theistic position. A disembodies soul cannot create anything, so God needs to have a body which will be supplies by another God whose body will again be supplied by another, and so on ad infinitum. Since a fool even does not do anything without purpose, what can be the purpose of an omnipotent and all-merciful God creating such a world full of pain and misery. Like that of the Jains, the target of the Mimamsaka attack was the theistic conception of the Nyaya-=Vaisesika. But Kumarila also extended his arguments even agains the conception of creation as advanced by the Vedanta. If the world is produced from Brahman who is free from all defects then the world should also be defectless, but it is not so. Likewise Maya or Avidya cannot be at the root of creation because there was no entity other than Brahman on the eve of creation. THis cannot be said that Brahman, the only reality, has induced the unread dreamlike Maya to create.
The task of the Mimamsakas was to defend logically the efficacy of the magical rites. In the course of doing so they developed their own theory of knowlledge, metaphysics, ethics and theology. Like the Jains, and the adherents of most other schools, the Mimamsakas admit the validity of determinate and indeterminate perception. But the Mimamsakas do not share with the Jains the idea of transcendental perception. So far as the non-perceptual sources of knowledge are concerned, besides inference and testimony, they admit three other sources - comparison (upamana), postulation (arthapatti) and non-perception (anupalabdhi) - a position womewhat different from the Jain standpoint. The Mimamsakas depend on the validity of sense-perception. They believe in the reality of the perceived world and of other objects. Here we find their agreement with the Jains. The Mimamsakas, in accordance with their belief in the reality of the world, reject the Buddhist theories of voidness and momentariness, as well as the Adwaita Vedanta theory of the unreality of the phenomenal world. The souls, according to the Mimamsa, are permanent eternal substances, and so also are the material elements by the combination of which the earth is made. The sould has the capacity for consciousness, but it is not the essence of soul. This is a point on which the Mimamsakas differ from the Jains. The law of Karma guides the formation of objects. The soul survives death to be able to reap the consequences of its Karma. Repeated births are caused by Karma. It is only by disinterested performance of duties and by knowledge of the self that the Karmas accumulated in the past are gradually worn out. Being free from all Karma-ties, liberation is achieved. Conceptually these ideas about liberation are not basically different from those of the Jains.
On the question of transcendental perception, as we have remarked above, the Mimamsa differs significantly from Jainism and other philosophical systems. While dealing with the relation between Jainism and Yoga we have seen that there developed a tendency amont the adherents of different systems to defend their philosophies on the strengthof the experience resulting from Yogic practices. Even Buddhist logicians like Dinnaga, Dharmakirti and Dharmottara insisted on Yogic perception. Such claims were also put forward by representatives of other philosophies. But the Mimamsakas deny such claim for Yogic experience or transcendental perception and hold that the so-called unique experience yielded by Yoga is nothing but a subjective fancy and as such quite useless in determining the validity of ay philosophical view. Their sole insistence upon pure empirical perception and flat denial of transcendental perception have been criticized by the Jain logicians like Akalanka, Abhayadeva, Hemacandra, etc.
=======(sitaram's observation):
As we read this Jain scholar, and become aware of the many divisions and different schools of thought the the Jain tradition, the Vedic tradition, Buddhist, Vedanta and all other traditions, WE COME TO THE REALIZATION that the terms Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Vedanta, et al are CONVENIENT CATEGORIES in which to group together what is in reality an ENORMOUS diversity of viewpoints, goals, and agendas of a MULTITUDE of individuals spanning VAST HISTORICAL PERIODS.
While terms like "Hindu", "Buddhis" and "Jain" are certainly not without meaning or utility, it is SOMEHOW A MISTAKE to assume that they denote ONE PERSON OR GROUP which speaks, believes, acts and functions in some unilateral and cohesive manner as a unique identifiable entity. Such terms and categorizations are useful fictions or hypotheses or constructs, useful to students, historians, philosophers, and theologians. It is an error to allow such terms to assume a reality and an identity all their own, and then to attribute motives and struggles to them as if they possessed some independent cohesive reality and existence all their own.
A tornado certainly has shape, force, direction and deserves to be called "tornado", and it is comprised of air, atoms and molecules acting and reacting according to precise and impersonal laws of thermodymics and inertia and gravity. Yet a tornado is unpredictable and evanescent. It comes to be and passes away and while it exists, one cannot attribute to it malice or mercy or say that it FOLLOWS a path, though most certainly it CUTS A PATH which is very discernable.
Perhaps my "tornado" analogy is in some ways too extreme and therefore inappropriate, but I think it helps to make my point.
It is very creative and though-provoking for a professor to pose the question of a "battle" between dharma and moksh in Jainism, the Vedas, and the Upanisads, but I honestly feel that such a question depends too heavily on the assumption that somehow the terms "Jain" "Vedas" "Upanisads" "Vedant" have some independent existence as an entity, rather than being a convenient IMAGE, which is really a gestalt, a constellation comprised of many other complex factors and individual entities.
A male may look at a newspaper photograph (or computer image) of a nude model and actually become sexually aroused. And yet, in reality that "image" is a gestalt of pixels of primary colors on the page or screen, which may easily be observed upon magniciation or enlargement. Granted, the illusion of this image is derived through a process from a living female who is a sexual being. But this does not alter the fact that what the male is responding to on the page or screen is a gestalt, an illusion, a fiction (albeit a most convenient and utilitarian fiction or device). Perhaps the most profound observation we might make concerning this analogy of the aroused male and the photographic image, is that the REACTION, the response and emotion, POINTS TO an image, an entity, a reality WITHIN THE PSYCHE OF THE MALE, something ancient, primordial and perennial, of which the living female model who posed for the photo is HERSELF an image or reflection of that inner psychic reality in the male observer. It is only by virtue of this INNER ENTITY in the male that he RECOGNIZES the dots and pixels as the pattern of a desirable woman. It is that inner psychic reality/entity which is resonating and responding to the image presented.
Likewise, deep within our psyche exist entities or an entity which resonates and reverberats and reacts to our fiction-gestalts of "Jain", "Buddhis", "Veda". So if there IS a battle going on between Dharma and Moksha, then the "battle" which we THINK we perceive is but a reflection and projection outwardly of some "battle" or struggle within our own psyche, within the Kurukshetra battle-field of our soul.
=========Journalist's comments:
Subj: Re: help for college students paper on hinduism
Date: 10/23/00 1:12:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Journalist
To: SITARAM
The professor's question is :
[Would you say that the history of Indian Religions - Vedic Hinduism, Upanisadic Hinduism and Janism - can be understood as a battle between dharma and moksa ? ]
Sitaram, I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as you, in fact perhaps my mercury is way too low -- because, my first response is that the worthy Professor responsible for phrasing this question is Full of It, and I dont mean Hindu philosophy.
He begins the question asking about the HISTORY of those Indian religions, suggesting he wants you to describe a certain sequence of evolution in thinking, then he talks about some nonexistent "Battle" between dharma and moksha suggesting some sort of struggle between these two concepts for preeminence.
What a poorly phrased question, probably to allow maximum latitude for fabrication from his students! Perhaps he perceives a conflict over what to pursue as an ideal or an end goal whether it should be dharma or moksha?
I think there may be in some western minds a slight confusion between DHARMA (the law of righteousness) and KARMA (action, resulting in reaction, consequences.) The right karma within the parameters of dharma leads to moksha.
The Vedic concept of dharma is that it is a constant, undying and immutable cosmic law. It is the INTERPRETATION of Dharma that is subjective. This concept both includes and transcends morality in the western sense of the word. I wrote this in a book review I did for an Indian publication...some day I might share it with you. I went on to say that the characters of Bheeshma and Yudishtira in the Mahabharata represent one type of dharmic individual bound to a very rigid interpretation of moral constraints, while Krishna presents a more pragmatic view of dharma to equip individuals with the discrimination to handle real-life dilemmas. It has to be STRESSED that this does not imply a sort of "anything goes" attitude.
It's been ages since I read these works and so I hesitate to pretend to scholarliness...these are just my impressions based on my interpretation, which may be subjective. The only thing I can say with conviction is that the question doesn't make sense! Perhaps you should advise your friend to put aside her texts for a bit and do some research instead on what her Professor wants to hear from his students!! Sincerely,
==========
Subj: Re: help for college students paper on hinduism
Date: 10/23/00 1:13:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Journalist
To: SITARAM
[
Sitaram: moksha , of course is ultimate goal... it means liberation/salvation... mukti...... no more rebirth... freedom from the cycle of birth/death/rebirth...
Sitaram: dharma has to do with order/righteousness..... it is the degree of our adherence to righteousness.... which determines good/bad karma... and eventually... gains us mukti or liberation...
Sitaram: so... there cannot be "battle"... dharma is means to an end.. the end is moksha... ]
YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH SUMMED IT UP RIGHT THERE.
=================
Subj: Re: help for college students paper on hinduism
Date: 10/23/00 1:24:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Journalist
To: SITARAM
[ Sitaram: Lord Krsna says... "every time Dharma declines, and Adarma increases,... I INCARNATE MYSELF and enter into the material world... to fight injustice...
Sitaram: so.. there.. in hindusim... god himself takes human form to battle adharma.... and restore dharma
Sitaram: so... hmmm... since in human terms... MOKSHA.. MEANS "reabsorption of jiva/soul into bramhajyoti or divine light,.. and no more rebirth"....
Sitaram: ergo..... ADHARMA... causes REVERSE!!!!
Sitaram: the brahmajyota.... leaves the godhead... AND TAKES HUMAN FORM
Sitaram: YOU GET MY POINT...
Sitaram: you see relationship... dharma for humans least to ...union with divine... leaving material form.... but ADHARMA causes divine to leave formless... and take form...
Sitaram: to me that is profound equation... profound observation... I never thought of this before
]
Sitaram, two comments--
one, you are way ahead of that professor, I bet this is NOT the line of thinking he expects or possibly can even fathom.
two, the reasoning you describe is from a dualistic perspective, and as such is only part of hinduism and does not speak for the whole of hinduism.
================
Subj: Re: The PLOT thickens....ha ha
Date: 10/23/00 11:14:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Journalist
To: SITARAM
[ one must wait many rebirths before a human birth... and then must wait until they have a MALE birth in Jain family... so they may take monastic vows..... (women must wait for male rebirth...no female nuns)..... ]
I find it quite amusing how most eastern philosophies advocate conquest of the Ego --"Ahamkara" ... but then in the same breath suggest that the MALE human is at the pinnacle of evolution -- proving in the process that the human animal is quite consistent, regardless of race, class or religious persuasion!
I do feel sorry for your student friend. Hindu philosophy requires a tremendous shift of mindset beyond simply being able to define terms like dharma and moksa. Once you UNDERSTAND, then the logic and simplicity are as dazzling as the clear sapphire of Georgian Bay. In order to truly grasp some of those concepts, however, one has to read the right books. Perhaps you could make some recommendations to her that might help.
============
Subj: Re: Vedas
Date: 10/23/00 11:29:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Journalist
To: SITARAM
[we may also compare with dwaita and vasisthdwaita ]
That's VISISHtadwaita....VASISHT is the name of one of the Brahmarishis...
You've accurately summed up the gist of the Vedas, Upanishads...I'm wondering at this point if your student friend has been asked to read the Bhagavadgita because it provides an overall perspective of the relative merits of KARMAYOGA, which the Vedas represent, and GYANAYOGA, achieved through self-control, introspection and study, as two possible paths to salvation or Moksha.
=======
Subj: Re: another great feedback!
[ There was indeed a battle between dharma and moksha. That battle was fought between people who follow Purva Mimangsha and people who follow Vedanta. The Mimangshakas believe that everybody should live their lives according to dharma i.e. Vedic injunction. The ultimate goal of life is to enjoy pleasures in heaven which can only be obtained by following dharma. The Vedantists do not accept such a view. They believe that dharma is merely the means and Moksha is the goal. ]
I still dont see any "battle" between dharma and moksha. Each system of thought incorporates a vision of Dharma , but they differ in their conclusions about where following that dharma leads them. Purva Mimamsakas and Vedantins differ in their conclusions about the nature of the ultimate reality and the afterlife. Do you mean, there was actually a battle of ideologies?
Please dont be offended, but to me trying to answer the professor's question appears to be an exercise much like imagining clothes on an emperor in his birthday suit.
I DO accept everything you are saying, in terms of all your analyses about the Vedas, Brahmanas, Vedanta, Jainism -- but even if we hairsplit the issue down to the last follicle, I maintain, IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE to speak of a "battle" between dharma and moksha. It makes no sense at all.
In a message dated 10/23/00 7:00:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, SITARAM writes:
[ Now, regarding the question above, of a 'battle' between 'dharma' and 'moksa', at first glance, my reaction was similar to yours and I found no 'battle' to speak of, since, as you say, dharma is a means to moksa, i.e. a means to an end.
]
I respectfully submit -- I have a different view.
KARMA is a means to moksa, not DHARMA. Dharma is not a means to anything, it just IS. Dharma is an immutable universal law of righteousness that is not codified formally by text or clay tablet, but it is open to subjective interpretation by different philosophies. When you perform the right karmas according to your dharma, then you're on your way to your desired end. --
=========
Sitaram-- first, my compliments to you on the way you have helped this student find her way through this paper. While I have enjoyed participating in this, I must say my deeper involvement comes at the expense of other things -- and I just do not have the luxury of time and leisure. At the same time, when you send me something, the urge to comment on it is irresistible! So I had to restrain myself and stay detached while reading through the paper she has submitted to you to proof , and remind myself this is HER paper, not mine! I admire this student's sincerity but I am sorry her teacher is leaving her to grope around so much without referring her to the right reading materials.
I think you are best suited to be an advisor -- you are the person people seek out -- so please do not involve me any more in matters that have fixed response deadlines that must be met.
Anyway, here is an additional comment on this paper, which follows the excerpt from the student's paper below:
The Hymn to Purusha discusses how man was evolved and how each The human body discussed in Purusha coincides with the caste order; Purusha can be interpreted as the higher caste being the upper body and the lower body being the lower caste. The mouth becomes the Brahman (this should be spelled Brahmin. Brahman is the Ultimate Reality) , the Brahman is the highest class in the caste, and the mouth is situated at the top of the body. The two arms become the Rajanya who are known as the Warriors. The two thighs become the Vaishyas, they are known as the lower caste. Lastly, the Sudras were born of the two feet; the Sudras are known as the Untouchables they are the lowest in the caste system. The moon was born of the mind; it can be related to the mind as the ability to produce knowledge. The creation of the universe upholds social order by creating ranks among the Vedic Hindus, if there were equality there would be no social order amongst the people. The Brahmans, who are the priests are respected and protected by the Kshitryas (Kshatriyas)who are the warriors, who are supplied by the Merchants, who provide work for the Laborers, lastly there are the Sudras, the Untouchables who are the lowest in the caste system and are not allowed to intermix with the others. Without Dharma, the ability to maintain social order, there would (be) chaos.
*********************************************************************************
Now the reason I suggested reading the Bhagavadgita is because one must know the difference between Hindu philosophy and Hindu social structure as devised by people who came later, like Manu, whose Dharmashastra in turn became absorbed into religious practice and eventually became indistinguishable from religion. ..the majority of Hindus, it must be said, do not themselves comprehend the difference. While it is true that the hymn to Purusha described social stratification, the rigorous separation of castes came later.
Look at these verses from the Bhagavadgita:
Chapter 3, verse 18
The sages perceive the same Truth in the Brahmin, rich in knowledge and culture, a cow, and elephant, a dog and a dog-eating lower-caste person.
Verse 19
Birth is vanquished by those whose mind abides in equality. Flawless indeed is Brahman (The Ultimate Reality), and undifferentiated; hence they abide in Brahman.
Now anyone who truly understands the meaning of these verses will realize that the caste system was created because it was socially expedient, and it is NOT, as some believe, a mechanism created by God to create successive tiers of worthiness.
Chapter 4, Verse 13
The four-fold class-system ACCORDING TO THE DIVISION OR PRAKRTI'S CONSTITUTENTS AND WORKS has been ordained by Me. Though I am the author, know Me to be the immutable non-agent.
Please note that the class system as described here was determined by Prakriti (the creative force's) constituents, being sattva, rajas, and tamas, and the attributes associated with each. In other words, this basically shows that it is the qualities of human nature that determine what work one will gravitate towards, or be best suited for. NOTHING in the Gita advocates untouchability or iron-clad social stratification. The final part of this verse stresses the separateness of the Supreme from the workings of this class system, suggesting that it is something to be transcended.
An additional response to your piece about Osho:
Chapter 3, Verse 39 of the Gita
Krishna says to Arjuna:
Knowledge, O son of Kunti, is obscured by the persistent foe of the knower, which is Craving and Desire, as by an insatiable fire.
In other words, you quell a fire by controlling it, not by feeding it.
+++++++
========
Date: 10/24/00 1:01:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Journalist
To: SITARAM
Forward to Page 319
Back to Page 317
..... or all the way back to Page 1
Index of Pages
Email Feedback
