The Concept of Absolute Liberation[Paramoksa]
In order to delineate the logical framework of the form of inquiry revealed in this text, it is best to begin with the author's concept of paramoksa with which he deals in the penultimate section of the text. The earlier sections lead up to that, the last section is a follow-up of what is accomplished here.
The author's analysis of paramoksa appears to be as follows:
It is the existential state of an individual where his ego is permeated completely by the intrinsic and blissful nature of Civa thereby eliminating the ego functioning as a being delimited by the confounding and finitising constraints that have been afflicting it from primordial times.
This analytic understanding presupposes the following:
a) Paramoksa is a transformed and ultimate existential state of an individual, the highest way of Being that is ever possible.
b) It is an existential meaning [ purasartta ] and hence that which gives the ultimate significance for human existence, the ultimate or overiding meaning of all human (and animal) endeavors.
c) It is a form of objective knowledge or understanding , something intuitable and hence something that can be articulated or communicated somehow and being agreed upon by many.
Armed with these conceptual delineation and understanding of paramoksa, the author then enters into a polemic and refutes the contrary views expounded by the other schools of Indian philosophy - The Carvaka, Buddhists, Samkhya, Yoga, Jaina, Vedanta and so forth and also the Pasupatas, Mahaviratas, Naiyayikas and so forth.[5].
The views of some Buddhist sects where paramoksa is defined as the annihilation of the body or the mental mechanisms (that are the causes of miseries and so forth) are criticized on the ground that they deny the experiential nature of paramoksa. The ego is annihilated in such a definition and where there is no ego there is no being as such and experiencing.
The definition that it is the attainment of a steady stream of consciousness without any openness to disturbances is also found to be inadequate on the grounds that it undermines the illuminated character of paramoksa. It is not strictly speaking an attainment or achievement - it is essentially a happening, a bestowal. It is a state an individual is transposed or elevated to by forces and powers beyond his jurisdiction. One can aspire, endeavor to attain it but it is not in itself a product of endeavors and aspirations. It is what may happen to an individual in the course of his endeavors perhaps unconsciously and which discloses the workings of ARUL.
In the Samkhya view moksa is the attainment of kaivalya - the decoupling of the ego from the evolutes of prakirti that constitute empirical existence. This decoupling and attaining a disengagement also results in the ego becoming the Purusha, the indestructible spiritual being that remains unaffected by the evolutes of prakirti. Clearly such a conception is inconsistent with the view that paramoksa is a transcendence of psycho-metamorphoses, the end phase of the transformations of the psyche where it ceases to act anymore as a constrained and delimited ego. Decoupling or disengagement is an attainment while paramoksa is a happening to a psyche whereby its being is transformed by agencies other than itself, so that Being is now characterized by absolute universality.
In yoga moksa is seen as the augmenting the catvika guna and simultaneously repressing the rajasic and tamasic gunas. To be dominated by catvika guna is seen as the inherent potential of all creatures and hence moksa here will mean the attainment of what is inherent to all.Clearly the objection to this will be that coupling oneself to the catvika guna is still being bonded to the 'material' evolutes and hence though it could be a lower level of moksa, it could not be paramoksa, the absolute moksa as defined by the author which is a state of Being free of any attachments or bondage a state of absolute autonomy.
A similar kind of objection is raised to the concept of moksa as calokam, camippyam, caruppyam and cayucciam entertained in the theistic schools of ganapatiyam and so forth which are varieties of being in the image of God.[6]
The pasupatas, mahaviratas and others belonging to the 'inner' schools of thought expound moksa in terms of attaining powers of various sorts thereby equaling Civa himself or His archetypal presentations (i.e. murtties)[7]. These conceptions are also seen faulty for they are seem to contradict the characterization of Civa-In-Itself (corupam) as the most powerful with complete regulatory power over all, without excluding any and hence the anma remaining subservient to CIVA even on attaining moksa.
The moksa where there is cessation of all activities so much so that the individual is like a corpse is also not true moksa for it denies the view that it is a state of consciousness, of understanding , of supreme illumination.
The critique of the concept of moksa of mayavati, i.e. the Advaita Vedanties focuses on the concept of avidya. Avidya as explained by Sankara is neither real nor unreal - it is simply anirvacana, something that is beyond linguistic description and understanding. As such it is quite different from anavam that is postulated in Saiva Siddhanta for accounting for the delimited and finite nature of human functioning. Anavam is a real, non-intelligent stuff that is the root cause of the ego acquiring egoity and karma and hence a psychological nature and phenomenal presence.
One aspect of paramoksa as defined by the author is that it frees the ego from phenomenality - the need to be born and die in the world repetitively. The concept of avidya as defined in Advaita Vedanta does not lead to such a view of the relation between ego and karma and hence an understanding the phenomenality of the ego. If phenomenality cannot be explicated then obviously paramoksa as liberation from being a phenomenal creature cannot also be explained.
In this way the author throws away the above views of paramoksa, by pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions and inadequacies with the understanding of it he articulates. This throwing away of contrary views is an act of episodisation i.e. sangkaram, a philosophical activity that lets a better informed view to emerge.
( to be continued )
Loganathan @ Ullaganar
No comments:
Post a Comment