Mok>a
Is it freedom
from ‘suffering’ or freedom from ‘birth and death’? Basically, there is no difference between
these two since there can be no experience of suffering without coming into
life.
Before we seek
for an answer, here are the fundamentals: (i) nature of suffering, (ii) cause
of suffering, (iii) nature of freedom and (iv) means to freedom. This is the paradigm of suffering and freedom
that is commonly found in almost all schools of thoughts in India. For example, S§/khya K§rik§ opens the
discussion by this idea: ‘du#kha-traya-abhigh§t§d---’: ‘here is an endeavor
made to finally overcome all three kinds of suffering forever’.
Be it Buddha or
Advaita, freedom from pain and attainment of mok>a are common theme in all
schools of Indian thoughts. Is this
possible to get rid of suffering? All these schools equivocally assert that it
is possible to transcend suffering and enjoy ultimate Freedom for good
(§tyantika-du#kha-niv&tti). In
certain schools, in place of suffering, cycle of birth and death has been
used. Body-mind complex i.e., coming
into human life is the only cause of suffering. Life and suffering are
corelated.
Therefore,
freedom means to get rid of endless cycle of life and death. However, in
certain parts of the world, particularly in Abrahamic cultures, existence of
endless cycles of life and death is not widely accepted. So, in such contexts, getting rid of
suffering can be discussed.
Ved§nta
propagates path to mok>a which is paved through discriminative wisdom. That is done by dissecting absolute from the
relative, permanent from impermanent, eternal from mundane, self from non-self,
avidy§ from Brahman.
Yoga of
Pata_jali has the concept of ‘catur-vy%ha-v§da’: suffering (heya), cause of
suffering (heya-hetu), freedom from suffering (h§na) and means to freedom from
suffering (h§nop§ya). This is supported
by the school of S§/khya as well.
In place of
Mok>a, S§/khya uses the term apavarga.
It is believed that despite different words used in different
traditions, nature of Spiritual Freedom (or Mok>a) is one and the same.
Comments
Post a Comment