Week-7, Lesson-2 , Module-14

Complexities and Conflicts within the Puruṣārtha Schema:

Searching for Resolutions
By
Prof. H.S. Prasad (Emeritus)
Department of Philosophy
University of Delhi

What does puruṣārtha mean?

That which is good or valuable (iṣṭa) for man, beneficial to him, and desired (kāmya) by him is
puruṣārtha. It is opposite to evil, bad, or dis-value (aniṣṭa) and undesirable. In this way, the
evaluation of man’s behaviour in his life is divided into two categories – praiseworthy and
blameworthy, and happiness and sorrow, respectively, which depend on his preference as we
see in the cases of Yudhiṣṭhira and Duryodhana, Rāma and Rāvaṇa, Kṛṣṇa and Kaṅsa, the
Buddha and Aṅgulῑmāla, Mahāvῑra and Hitler, Lenin and Mahatma Gandhi, and so on. All
these issues can be covered under the study of puruṣārtha.
The puruṣārtha schema is complex and conflicting, because it is devised to organize,
structure, and regulate the complex and conflicting nature, acts, and values of human beings.
However, despite serious attempts made over the centuries, it always remains problematic both
in theory and practice. In this situation, we have no escape but to face it. This paper is a humble
attempt to understand a few issues addressed by this schema, which is a man-centric value-
system conceived to be functioning within the holistic cosmic framework by the Indian
visionaries (ṛṣi). This is a master holistic framework, which has been at work to create,
promote, and sustain an everlasting, great universal culture and civilization, which requires
constant collective human effort. For this reason, the Vedic tradition is called a worldview of
sanātana-dharma.
Without going into the historical and conceptual classification of human values into
three or four (trivarga or caturvarga), I shall focus on the caturvarga formula. It is a common
knowledge that hierarchical ranking of these four values (dharma, artha, kāma, and mokṣa) are
done differently, for example, in the Arthaśāstra it is artha which is foundational and other are
secondary. Likewise, kāma, dharma, and mokṣa can also be considered respectively
foundational over the rest. Interestingly, each way of organizing has rational justification.
Strictly speaking, they are not unconnected, rather they are interwoven. This creates an endless
debate among the competing rivals giving rise to a more and more modified and enriched
version of culture and civilization. Moreover, this attitude involving flexibility, openness,
mutual acceptability and respect, active toleration, and mutual enrichment without rigidity in
one’s own view has made Indian civilization as the greatest civilization of the world. What has
made its greatness possible is its uncompromising focus on interpersonal, intercultural, and
interreligious dialogue as a value within the framework of spiritual cosmic holism, which
develops each self (ātman) as the centre of all metaphysical and ethical relations with each

1
being of the cosmos whether human being or non-human being. In this sense, each person is a
cosmic man in miniature. This worldview is not found in any other civilization and culture,
such as Western, Islamic, and Chinese.
What is value?
Generally, anything which is good is a value and so it is desirable ( iṣṭa), such as food, wealth,
power, health, knowledge, pleasure, happiness, morality, meditation, peace, harmony, freedom,
friendship, solidarity, respect for life, truth, dignity, love, renunciation, justice, equality,
secularism, human rights, nature care, duty, and courage. But it is very important to remember
that pursuance of any value is context-sensitive and so relative. Thus seeking of sensuous
pleasure by eating sweets, if the seeker is suffering from sugar disease is not desirable.
Likewise, seeking sexual pleasure without consensual, respectful, and righteous involvement of
the partner is not desirable. All these are the cases of value pluralism, which are ranked
according to the requirement of the seeker. This means there are some values, which are more
basic and preferable than others. At times, these relatives conflict with each other in a certain
situation, for example, truth and respect for life, or the conflicts among the four traditional
values. The great advantage of the ancient Indian value system is that it resolves the conflicts
by creating a two-level value theory, Absolute and Relative. The former is not only supreme
and foundational, but also constitutive and regulative at both empirical and transcendental
cosmic levels. Whereas functioning of the relative values are empirically given, the realization
of the Absolute Value is possible through intuitive faculty. Let us discuss in brief the very
conceptual framework within which these levels are integrated through man’s normative
actions. This explains the grand harmonious cosmic order of Indian variety. But contrary to it,
none of the three ways of thinking about normative morality, for example, Aristotlian Virtue
ethics, J.S. Mill’s Utilitarianism, or Kant’s deontology, has this spiritual approach.
Conceptual Framework of Indian Value System
I think, we can talk of at least there main kinds of creation (sṛṣṭi): (1) Creation of the world by
God or Nature or any other creative principle like Brahman; (2) creation through conjugal
relation or biological process by parents, and (3) creation, i.e. shaping of human personality,
within the contexts of family, society, and other institutions, which themselves are human
creation. Whereas the first kind of creation are beyond human control and the second one
although involves parents, the constitutive factors and the process of birth are non-human.
Contrary to them, the third one is wholly within the power of human being as it requires a
visionary worldview and self-effort (puruṣakāra). Puruṣārtha schema falls under this category,
which takes care of the human development – intellectual, cultural, and spiritual. It talks of
every human good or value which is not only essential but also meaningful for a qualitative
life. In this enterprise, a human being is transformed into a cultured and civilized being on the
earth and acquires the ability to make distinction between good and bad, praiseworthy and
blameworthy, right and wrong, and value and vice, apart from realizing his true identity and
purpose of life within the pluralistic but unified world.
Human being is a sentient being like animals, insects, and plants, but uniquely different
from them in many significant ways. He is endowed with sophisticated faculties like mind or
intellect, which is instrumental in (i) organizing his experiences, knowledge, thought, choices,
and judgment, and guide his acts (mental, vocal, and physical) and evaluate their
consequences; (ii) developing a worldview to guide his life to make it meaningful and
2
flourishing; (iii) setting his goals to be accomplished at various stages of his life; (iv)
identifying and skillfully pursuing human values; (v) making a transcendental inquiry into the
possibility of continuity of life across its past, present, and future journey; (v) developing his
self to acquire a spiritual identity through intuitive realization, and so on.
Further, man’s bio-psycho-physical existence requires (a) things like food, cloths,
house, money, medical facility, family, society, and political power (artha); (b) fulfillment of
sensuous pleasure through the five external senses, sexual engagement, and aesthetic
experience (kāma); (c) harmonious and peaceful order in every situation like personal health,
family, society, state, nature, and the entire cosmos regulated by dharma or ṛta as both
empirical and cosmic principle, because without this there will be no guarantee of happiness,
which is the ultimate good simpliciter and so the supreme goal of every human being. But it is
obligatory that every man makes his own contribution to maintain this kind of comprehensive
integrated order (samanvaya), of which he is also the beneficiary. This way, his worldview
comprises of entire humanity, animals, plants, landscape, water, Sun, moon, air, fire, and every
other entity of the cosmos. This shows that the dynamics of plurality and unity creates an
integrated whole. This is the empirically visible fact. The primary quest for Vedic and
Upaniṣadic Seers is to know that underlying cosmic principle, which is at the same time both
pluralistic and monistic, and also discovers man’s true identity and governs his values and
destiny. We know that for these Seers, this principle is an absolute foundational value, which
manifests itself into the plurality of the relative values and gives them a new meaning. This
principle is technically called Brahman, the Absolute Cosmic Self, which is essentially
identical to the individual self (ātman). Also, its knowledge itself, which is acquired through
extraordinary way, is the foundational knowledge, the highest good like this principle itself.
Both are of the nature of consciousness, which is also the source of the pluralistic material
world.
Again, in an important sense, man’s very existence essentially and necessarily depends
on the above mentioned three values or goods as they are pursued for the very survival and
happiness of his life. For this reason, his own self is obliged to relate to and respect the other,
which includes not only other human beings but also non-human beings. This means for his
own wellbeing and flourishing life he has to recognize this fact. This is the spiritual insight
developed by the Vedic Seers and elaborated by the subsequent thinkers in India. In order to
make this grand programme of cosmic holism a great success, it is obligatory that every
individual human being conducts his behavior – manasā, vācā, and karmaṇā – by relating
himself to all these others, respectful in their own right, as they are participating in him for his
happy survival and for the harmony and peace at all levels of his existence. This is a view,
which maintains the primacy of interdependence over independence as a value. This
remarkable wisdom, technically called Madhu-vidyā or Madhu-brāhmaṇa, is elaborated in the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. In the same spirit, in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the concept of
bhūmā defines a person as a network of cosmic relations, which is the source of fullness and
happiness. These insights are converted into practical norms, which are covered under the
value of dharma by the Vedic tradition. It is my conviction that in India any human value
system must be in consonance with this worldview. This is by all means a rational view, not
simply an opinion or non-cognitive belief.

3
 Now it is clear that the formation of an integrated cosmic holistic view and the
corresponding shaping of the human conduct are the primary tasks of the ancient Indian
thinkers. They are universal instrumental values, which lead to the realization of various
empirical and spiritual goals/value/goods like harmony, peace, happiness, and prosperity.
Remember that Brahman is the most foundational intrinsic value. The neglect of these basic
values is the main cause of various problems, which have become more serious in today’s
materialistic world.
Needless to say, the above brief sketch makes the man an extremely responsible and
accountable person for which he requires holistic education, strict discipline, and self-training
(=dharma). This is the course leading to ātmavidyā. Now, note the two main kinds of dharma,
cosmic natural principle and normative moral principle. Thus, dharma is both constitutive and
regulative principle. Since the human life is so complex, happiness-giving as well as
frustrating, because happiness is not guaranteed and often there are failures in the world-
affirming activities (pravṛtti), one tends to renounce them to go beyond the world of dharma
and adharma (nivṛtti), i.e. outside the domain of the society of relations. This form of mokṣa is
negative in the sense that the individual self gets freedom from all kinds of action.
Traditionally, this is the state of renouncement and seeking mokṣa. This is obviously an
individualistic move and not appreciated by all. This escapist and selfish attitude is considered
damaging to the ideal of lokasaṃgraha, an ideal value of social and political nature. That is
why, in the scripture like the Bhagavadgītā, there is a serious attempt to synthesize pravṛtti and
nivṛtti in such a way that the personal nivṛtti is transformed into a cosmic pravṛtti, which frees
the agent from self-centric binding consequences and worldly suffering. This is a modified
form of mokṣa, which engages the agent in the moral action without self-interest, limits, and
prejudices. His unrestricted morality itself is happiness. The duality of instrumental and
intrinsic values does exist in this state.
This is the journey from worldly man (mānuṣa) to cosmic man (puruṣa), egoism to
altruism, and also from anthropocentric ethics to cosmocentric ethics. This is the formal
structure of the traditional Indian value system, which aims at first developing and
spiritualizing the individual self. This is variously called ātmavidyā,adhyātmavidyā, and
amṛtavidyā. This is the foundational value, which reveals one’s not only cosmic identity
(Ᾱtman = Brahman) and generates for him a universal ethical relationship amidst the world of
plurality, but also enhances his virtuous personality (ātmaguṇa). All this marks a worldview of
common humanity within the common cosmic order, which also includes the framework of
varṇāśramadharma, preyas–śreyas, and abhyudaya–niḥśreyas hierarchy. This makes a strong
appeal not only in practical sense but also in logical sense. This defines a hierarchy in the
human values themselves. Both kinds of value, at personal as well as impersonal level, at
public or cosmic level, are united in one ascending process, i.e. the highest level. The latter
requires agent’s self-transcendence to achieve that level. This is the state of the fulfillment of
one’s prayer: asato mā sadgamaya, tamaso mā jyotir gamaya, mṛtyor māmṛtaṁ gamaya. This
spiritual ideal is also truly secular in the sense that it is all-inclusive in action, very much
empirical, and grounded in spiritual perspective. To achieve this perspective, one is advised
repeatedly to meditate upon the self: ātmatyevopāsita, which requires knowing one’s true
identity, self-development, and corresponding moral action. One must remember that unlike in

4
the Abrahmic religions, the above Indian conceptual framework and the dharma-morality are
neither theological nor characterizes the humanity as sinful.
Methodology and Rational Resolution of Moral Conflicts
Indian value-system is not based on divine or God’s commandments and blind faith. It is based
on first person experience, hearing from enlightened teachers (śravaṇa), intellectual analysis
(manana), reflective thinking (nididhyāsana), and concentrative practice (dhyāna). In other
words, it is experiential, rational, and practiced in life. The latter is the end target; it is not a
subject matter of endless and dry intellectual discourse (atipraśna), which neglects and goes far
beyond the concerns of life and the universe. The Buddhist responses to such excess rationality
are characterized as going too far and too fast (atidurāt, atidhāvanti) from the purpose. They
should, it is advised, be avoided (ṭhapaṇῑya) and when insisted one should maintain silence as
the Buddha did. Such irrelevant rationality can also be analyzed and shown to be empty in
content and so non-sense. The classical Indians do subscribe to reasoning, but they are
pramāṇa-based, but for them reason is not the sole arbiter of settling the intellectual conflicts
as its excessive application creates incurable skepticism. To use the Wittgensteinian phrases of
surface structure and deep structure, the Indians relies on the six sense faculties to apprehend
the surface structure of the empirical phenomenal world, but to grasp the underlying
transcendental reality, they rely on the faculty of intuition. In the same vein, it is said that
understanding of the nature, scope, and depth of dharma is mystical (guhya) as it is the
supreme, foundational, non-sensuous, functional, ideal intrinsic value. Even if an individual
person is autonomous and makes serious effort, in certain complex and conflicting situation, he
utilizes the wisdom of realized souls (mahājana). In my opinion, the contemporary analytical
Western thinkers and their Indian followers, not understanding the ancient Indian mode of
thinking, fall prey to atipraśna, atidhāvanti, and atidurāt type of charges. I am not saying that
their analysis goes in vain. Rather it awakens the lazy, traditional, Indian thinkers from their
slumber.
Meeting the Challenges to the Puruṣārtha Schema
Contrary to it, the modern Western philosophy remains endlessly hungry for conceptual
analysis and clarification. It is for this reason that the two leading Indian analytic thinkers –
Daya Krishna and Rajendra Prasad find serious faults with puruṣārtha schema, which is
blamed to have more religious than philosophical orientation. Such analytical philosophers
take the puruṣārtha schema only in a normative sense at the best. Particularly these two
scholars are looking for theoretical and logical structure of the schema. The former wants to
find a scope of at least relative autonomy of mind or intellect, or a desire for knowledge and
understanding as a basic ideal value, which cannot be accommodated without changing the
meaning and scope of kāma. He observes, “But once the term kāma is stretched to cover all
ends of human seeking, there would remain no distinction between it and the other
puruṣārthas. The difference between them could perhaps, then, be drawn on other grounds.”
He further finds irresolvable conflicts among such notions as kāma, icchā, sakāma, niṣkāma,
phala, niṣphala, karma, prayatna, bandhana, and mokṣa. He also notices a serious conflict
between the descriptive nature of artha and kāma on the one hand, and prescriptive nature of
dharma and mokṣa. In the same vein, he takes the very meaning of the word ‘ artha’ in
‘puruṣārtha’ problematic, if it means “giving meaning or significance to human life.” In that
case, dharma and mokṣa would lose their preeminence. Rajendra Prasad focuses on one
5
puruṣārtha, i.e. mokṣa. He writes: “In fact, several types of roles, metaphysical, ethical,
religious and logical, have been assigned to the concept of mokṣa. But . . . I am interested only
in what seems to me the chief logical role that is required, or at least expected, to play.” He
questions the very philosophical competence of the Western sympathizers, who are just
orientalist in this area.
Professor Kamalakar Mishra mentions these two analysts in brief, but avoids facing
these challenges in his article on puruṣārtha. Whereas Daya Krishna and Rajendra Prasad are
too demanding in terms of critical analysis, which ultimately kills the philosophical spirit of the
puruṣārtha schema, the scholarship of Professor Mishra along with the other traditional Indian
philosophers requires sufficient critical analysis of this schema and its reconstruction. It is
interesting to note that our ancient intellectual tradition has produced rich literature to address
the issues of each human value to make the human life meaningful in every aspect. Moreover,
there are other issues, which I would like to raise, here. These are:
· Is the puruṣārtha schema available to all sections of the Indian society like
śūdras, aliens, and women?
· One more conflict zone for our discussion is the trinity of sāmānyadharma–
svadharma–āpaddharma.
Introduction and development of the concept of mokṣa and its development

· The Vedas and Brāhmaṇa-s are pravṛtti-mārgῑ, have no concept of mokṣa;

they do have the concepts of karma-mārga and svarga, but not mokṣa, and so
they follow trivarga formula. They do not have vānaprastha and saṃnyāsa
āśrama-s as an ideological scheme. Their emphasis is more on gṛhastha life.
· The Āraṇyaka-s and the Upaniṣads emphasize jñāna-mārga (ātmavidyā-cum-
brahmavidyā), caturvarga ending in saṃnyāsa and mokṣa, which are followed
by all philosophical schools of Vedānta based on the Upaniṣads.
· The Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, Purāṇa-s, have the mixed approaches
combining karma (pravṛtti), jñāna (realization of ātman-brahman identity),
and jñāna-karma-bhakti-yoga-samuccaya schema.
· Sāṃkhya–Yoga, Buddhism, and Jainism originally non-theistic and heterodox
have their own theories of mokṣa. Sāṃkhya–Yoga philosophy was widely
accepted and used by the Mahābhārata and the Bhagavadgῑtā with some
changes.
· Except the materialist and unethical Cārvāka, all these orthodox and heterodox
traditions believe in liberation according to their own rational philosophical
ways.
· Ultimately we find a conflicting variety of the theory of mokṣa.
· History and philosophy must go together to understand and clarify the
complex issues of the four puruṣārtha-s
Who is man? Who desires for mokṣa? And why?

· In an empirical sense, man is a conscious being endowed with soul, mind,

five external senses, and five motor organs. In other words, he a cognitive,
reflective, rational, conative, emotive, meditative, and spiritual in nature.

6
· Man vs. animal: There is a commonality and difference between animal and
man. Whereas animal is pursues the puruṣārtha-s of kāma and artha, man
pursues all the four.
· Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita in his Hitopadeśa (Prastāvikā, Śloka 25) succinctly makes
this difference:
āhāra nidrā bhaya maithuna ca sāmānyam etat paśubhir narāṇām /

dharmo hi teṣām adhiko viśeṣo dharmeṇa hῑnā paśubhiḥ samānā //

· In spiritual sense, man is soul-searching, and desirous of mokṣa, i.e.

permanent freedom from suffering, peace, and happiness.
· In metaphysical sense, in the Vedic-Upaniṣadic tradition, man (manuṣya)
essentially represents Supreme God Prajāpati or Brahmā (puruṣa), who desires
(=kāma) to break his solitude and so manifests the universe of plurality out of
himself by his own power. In this way, man in his creation is endowed with
desire (kāma), which has the inbuilt ability to motivate for action in the
broadest sense, and fervour or energy (tapas), which has the power to create.
Their combined functioning achieves the highest level in the state of man’s
youth. He has the potentiality of developing himself through his knowledge
and spiritual/moral action from empirical man (manuṣya) to transcendental
cosmic man (puruṣa) within the world itself.
· In social sense, man is an individual who falls under various categories, such
as, dvija–advija, 4 varṇa-s, 4 āśrama-s, 4 puruṣārtha-s, and many other
categories, which are applicable to him in this world of action only. In this
context, kāma-puruṣārtha is the narrow characteristic of man as it is confined
to a specific type of society.
· Whereas kāma in the broadest sense is a constitutive factor and condition of
human life and existence, and also the origin and condition of other three
puruṣārtha-s: artha, dharma, and mokṣa, it is superior and prior to these three
puruṣārtha-s, but in the life of man, it requires a regulative principle and that
principle is dharma, which further facilitates the achievement of mokṣa.
· Unlike the Western value system, these puruṣārtha-s are not linear, rather
they are flexibly set in the complex mutual relationships in different
situations. Thus, their order may change both in ascending and descending
orders. This means each one may be dominant over the rest depending on the
contexts.
· Likewise, a gṛhastha is the foundation of other āśrama-s including the
Saṃnyāsin, who is on the path leading to mokṣa. Here are some more issues:
1. Meaning of mokṣa (mukti, kaivalya, nirvāṇa): Mokṣa is derived from the root
muc, meaning ‘freedom, redemption, salvation, etc.” (nivṛtti), but from what?
The answer is: From duḥkha of all variety – Ādhibhautika, Ādhidaivika, and
Ādhyātmika, that is, existential/physical, divine, and spiritual.
2. Causes of duḥkha: Different kinds of bandhana are the causes of duḥkha,
such as deha-bandhana, ṛna-bandhana, avidyā-bandhana, ahaṃkara-

7
 bandhana, bhava-bandhana, and all sorts of worldly attachments, etc. As a
whole, mokṣa means freedom from selfish as well as social values – kāma,
artha, and even dharma puruṣārtha-s. The Bhagavadgῑtā changes this
equation in an innovative manner.
3. Status of individual: Bandhana or liberation is meant for an individual who is
responsible for his/her karmas and only he can liberate himself by his own
effort.
4. Who gets liberation? In general, it is man’s individualistic goal to be
achieved by his own effort as said above. More appropriately, it is the
individual soul (ātman), which is liberated from all kinds of bandhana, but
man must be desirous of and qualify for mokṣa, which in ultimate sense is
obtained after death only. Thus, death or mortality (mṛtyu) is the necessary
condition of immortality (amṛta, amaratā) or mokṣa. This means death is
welcome in order to achieve the permanent liberation from suffering plus
bliss.
5. Consequences of liberation: Individual soul is either cut off from other
individual souls in the pluralistic framework work as found in Sāṃkhya-Yoga
and Nyāya–Vaiśeṣika, or losses its individuality by merging itself into the
Cosmic Self as we find in the Vedāntic systems. As opposed to living in
heaven (svarga), the liberated soul is never re-incarnated in the world of
action. In liberated state, it goes into deep sleep (suṣupti) or ultimate non-
returnable fourth state (turῑya) in the four modes of living – jāgrat, svapna,
suṣupti, and turῑya in Vedānta. Let us consider some more points:
· Mokṣa puruṣārtha is one of the four puruṣārtha-s, and it can be understood
only in relation to the 3 other puruṣārtha-s (dharma, artha, and kāma), 4
varṇas, and 4 āśrama-s, all within the socio-cosmic worldview of the Indian
culture and civilization. All these are concerned with every individual, family,
society, and the world as a whole.
· These 4 puruṣārtha-s can be divided into two categories: trivarga and
caturvarga. Trivarga (dharma, artha, and kāma) involves all sorts of this-
worldly actions (pravṛtti). The fourth puruṣārtha, i.e. mokṣa (mukti, kaivalya,
nirvāṇa), is added to it, and thus it is called caturvarga.
· In one sense, trivarga system falls under pravṛtti, and the fourth falls under
nivṛtti. Initially, this shows an opposition or conflict between pravṛtti and
nivṛtti, as nivṛtti is supposed to abandon or transcend pravṛtti. But in another
scheme, the two together show continuity without any conflict between the
two schemes.
· Some think that whereas pravṛtti is binding (bandhana) and aims at svarga,
which marks the cycle of birth-suffering-death-heaven-rebirth in this world,
i.e. return to the world (saṃsāra) repeatedly encompassed with trammels of
the world, nivṛtti marks permanent freedom from saṃsāra and no return to the
world.
· Again, whereas pravṛtti is society-oriented action (karma), nivṛtti is
renunciation from pravṛtti and guided by individual interest.
8
 · Later, the Bhagavadgῑtā reconciled the two under niṣkāma-karma and also
offered various options for the ways of obtaining both svarga and mokṣa, but
in every option, action (karma) is indispensible.
· We must note the centrality of different variety of Svadharma in different
contexts and situations, according to which, a man has to perform the
obligatory moral and social actions. At the same time, in return, it proves to be
rewarding in terms of svarga or mokṣa.
Pre-conditions of mokṣa

· In a general sense, the best systematic process of attaining mokṣa is to start

with the dharmic life of brahmacarya, gṛhastha, vānaprastha, and finally
saṃnyāsa.
· The pre-condition of marching on the saṃnyāsa life is to fulfil all familial,
social, and spiritual responsibilities like paying debts to parents (pitṛ-ṛna) in
the form of procreation, to teachers (guru-ṛna) by promoting education, and to
God/gods (deva-ṛna) for birth and sustenance of happy life in this world by
feeding them through yajña as well as ethical actions.
· The Vedāntic thinkers like Śaṃkara, Sureśvara, Brahmadatta, and Maṇḍana
explain in various ways the pre-conditions of obtaining moksa.
Śaṃkara’s model of jñāna-only: Śaṃkara is a staunch Advaita Vedāntin. According
to him, only jñāna-mārga can ultimately help the mokṣa-seeker to obtain the final
mokṣa, if he wants to get rid of worldly suffering. He defines mokṣa and its
characteristics as follows:

· Brahmabhāvaś ca mokṣaḥ. . . tad etat aśarῑratvaṃ mokṣākhyam. (BSŚ,

1.1.4). This shows the realization of the identity between jῑva (ātman) and
Brahman, i.e. to know one’s own essential nature (vastusvarūpāvadharaṇaṃ
vidyām āhuḥ – Adhyāsabhāṣya). (Cf. tat tvam asi)
· Brahmaveda brahmaiva bhavati. – Ibid. According to this definition, mokṣa
is equated with avidyānivṛtti, ātmavidyā, brahmānubhūti, sat-cit-ānanda, and
so on. This means that on the rise of brahmavidyā, mithyā-jagat disappears.
(Cf. brahmasatyaṃ jagan mithyā . . .)
· Brahmagatir hi puruṣārtha. Niḥśeṣasaṃsārabῑjāvidyādyānarthanibarhaṇāt.
Tasmād brahma jijñāsitavyam. – BSS, 1.1.4.
· His commentator Vācaspati in his Bhāmati comments: brahmajñānaṃ
samastaduḥkhopaśamarūpam ānandaikarasam.
· To start the process of realizing mokṣa, Śaṃkara sets four conditions, which
have preparatory roles, to be fulfilled by a mokṣa-seeker to qualify for mokṣa:
(1) nityānityavastuviveka; (2) ihāmutrārthabhogavirāga; (3) śamadamādi-
sādhanasampat; (4) mumukṣutva. (BSS, 1.1.1)
· Since the three puruṣārtha-s (dharma-artha-kāma) are this-worldly, action
oriented, and rebirth-suffering-death-rebirth generating process (bhava-
bandhana), which carries the seed of suffering and impermanent happiness
even in the heaven, they are set aside by Śaṃkara in favour of saṃnyāsa-
9
 āśrama and nididhyāsanā (= upāsanā) process to achieve brahmānubhūti, i.e.
intuitive experience of the essential unity of ātman and Brahman. Thus for
him, mokṣa is the only ultimate, transcendental, permanent, and blissful
human value. However, the three puruṣārtha-s are still considered as having
instrumental values (sādhana) for him, whereas ātma-vidyā, brahma-vidyā,
and mokṣa simultaneously enjoy the status of ultimate intrinsic value (parama-
sādhya). In truth, Śaṃkara strictly believes in moral inaction and
transcendence of morality in ultimate liberation, which is possible only after
death (videhamukti), whereas in jῑvanmukti the saṃskāra-s of the past life
(prārabdha-karma) are still alive, but suppressed. This way, there is always a
danger of their emergence as long as one is alive in the world of action. Thus
for him karma and mokṣa are two opposite poles within the framework of the
caturvarga.
· Other Vedāntins on Naiṣkarmya and jñāna-karma-samuccaya:
Sureśvara, Brahmadatta, and Maṇḍana. Comparison among karma, niṣkāma-
karma, and naiṣkarmya.
· The Mahābhārata (Mokṣadharma) and the Bhagavadgῑtā:
- Kṛṣṇa is projected as incarnated Brahman, the Cosmic God.
- Niṣkāma-guided svadharma duty (=yoga, saṃnyāsa, social action by an
individual) resulting in svarga or mokṣa. Syncretism of pravṛtti and nivṛtti.
- Knowing (= ātma-vidyā, brahma-vidyā), worshiping, surrendering to Kṛṣṇa,
or receiving grace (anukampā) from Kṛṣṇa, and so on may lead to svarga or
mokṣa.
Philosophical schools

· Mῑmāṃsā: (i) Early Mῑmāṃsā of Jaimini and Śabara believes in the self-
sustaining cosmos grounded in the power created by ethical and sacrificial
actions (karma-s) or potency (apūrva) without any God. Its philosophy and
religion are this worldly and so it follows pravṛtti-mārga and trivarga; (ii) the
later commentators – Prabhākara and Kumārila – also followed the early
position, but they were sympathetic to caturvarga; (iii) but the medieval
Mῑmāṃsakas – the two Nārāyaṇa-s of the 15th century accepted both God and
caturvarga, and the plurality of souls.
· Sāṃkhya–Yoga: The original Sāṃkhya metaphysics accepted two cosmic
principles – plurality of conscious soul (puruṣa) and the evolving matter
(prakṛti) constituted of triguṇa (sattva, rajas, and tamas). It did not accept any
God. According to it, the liberation of puruṣa from prakṛti is obtained by
discriminatory knowledge vivekabuddhi), which separates the two (kaivalya).
This is the state of mokṣa. Yoga is actually theistic Sāṃkhya in metaphysical
sense, but its method is yogic meditation. Both accept caturguṇa.
· Nyāya–Vaiśeṣika: It is a syncretic externalist and pluralist system. It believes
in the plurality of souls, whose primary characteristic is consciousness, apart
from other characteristics, all of which are separable. In the state of liberation,
it is separated from its consciousness and thus it is without consciousness,
10
 which means it remains just like a stone. In its later development, it
introduced the idea of soul in term of consciousness as its essence. It defines
mokṣa as complete eradication of suffering – ātyantikaduḥkhanivṛtti.
· Jainism: It is a realistic and pluralistic system and accepts the four
puruṣārtha-s, but no God. It maintains that for the liberation of soul, all
variety of karma-s whether physical or mental must be checked from their
influx and the remaining impressions must be exhausted in order to liberate
the soul so that it acquires its essential nature of omniscience and bliss. For a
better understanding of Jaina position of mokṣa, we must understand its
conceptual framework of the seven categories, which speak of its ethical and
spiritual way of thinking: soul (ātman, jῑva), matter (ajῑva), influx of karma-s
(āśrava), bondage (bandhana), checking of their influx (saṃvara), exhaustion
(nirjara), and liberation (mokṣa).
· Buddhism: It is a non-substantialist (anātmavādῑ) and theistically nihilist
system, but it is a strong spiritualist. Its concept of soul is minimalistic unlike
other systems of thought. Its different schools explain liberation in different
ways. Let us consider the following definitions:
(i) Tañhākhayo hi nibbānaṃ; (ii) Saṃkhārakhayo hi nibbānaṃ; (iii)
Sarvakalpanārahitaṃ hi nirvāṇam; paramārtho hi āryāṇāṃ tūṣṇῑṃ bhāvaḥ;
(iv) sukhārthaṃ kriyate karma tathāpi syān na vā sukham / karmaiva tu
sukhaṃ yasya niṣkarmā sā sukhῑ katham // – Bodhicaryāvatāra.

Short Bibliography

1. The Vedas (Shri Rama Sharma edition, Haridwara).

2. The Mahābhārata, the Bhagavadgῑtā, Upaniṣads with Śāṃkara-bhāṣya (Gita
Press editions).
3. Philosophical Sanskrit and Pali texts:
· Various secondary sources, such as: (1) Madeleine Biardeau,
Hinduism: The Anthropology of a Civilization; (2) Charles
Malamound, “Semantic and Rhetoric in the Hindu Hierarchy of the
‘Aims of Man’;” (3) Nicholas Sutton, Religious Doctrines in the
Mahābhārata, and many others.

*****

11