Dharma, Moksha & Advaita Vedanta's book
Vajra Mudra.
I'm reading (continuing to read) Secret Doctrine from Helen Blavatski and find it very, very hard and complex. Not the ideas in itself, but the concepts. To achieve and understand some main aspects of this specific book, i went to google some stuff i wonder about.
I could understand through Buddhism and Hinduism there are a lot of differences about main terms or main goals, as i like to see it, too.
Like Dharma, Artha, Kama, but mostly Moksha. When i was younger, at about 12 years old, i had an experience which i can relate as a Near-Death Experience, and i still can swear it was liberating and blissed, like the descriptions of concepts about Moksha and Nirvana suggests. But could it be considered as a part of the equation on human's experience? Or is it just a piece of good dharma to relieve the human pain, provided by the source ITSELF, as an empathy piece to a good human student, and the pain and suffering continues till human liberation...?
We might meditate, we might pray, sang and do our acts of self-sacrifice, or, according to some "isms", be our real nature, i mean, act (not react) as an instinctive nature trueself, and we might well get there, to the middle way, i suppose. But, i'm certain that in ingnorance or without giving the best of ourselves to the human experiece, we can´t feel relief about getting our moksha determination. Or even dharma.
And studying some determinisms and concepts, not only in religion, but also philosophics, epistemological's, psycologicals and culturals, diving into oneself, can we find more then these concepts or just getting stucked into our own limited patterns of mind?
I find these paragraphs a big curtain (piece and details) to a Virgo mind. Not speaking about spacial inteligence but a strict narrowed thoughs to a kind of detailled investigation mind (the details). I will left these statements and underviews below of Nagarjuna and Adi Shankara's and will continue to read and trying to learn more about. In a general view of a small and narrow mind as mine, i can fully accept all the concepts (Artha, Dharma, Kama) as means to find Moksha, Nirvana or spiritual release and at the same time, i can understand the doubt of Nagarjuna's question. Can we fully obtain moksha during our life time, or it will happen (if it happens) after our phisical liberation and the other release in between states, running from Samsara's wheel? My goal is moksha but what i have lived till now is inbetween dharma, kama and so little from artha (the profits of work), that I wonder whether, in this journey or ambition without earthly desire, it can still lead, while human, to obtaining both, since I have already completed fifty-seven years and Saturn does not favor the undisciplined? (...) Advaita Vedanta's book ( The self) might have the answer to my own doubts, i wish! Wikipedia can be a great source of drawers of knowledge, but we still have to catch the pearls. Or the stones.
Nagarjuna's challenge
Dharma and moksha, suggested Nagarjuna in the 2nd century, cannot be goals on the same journey.[29] Reason being, dharma requires worldly thought, but moksha is unworldly bliss. Thus, "How can the worldly thought-process lead to unworldly understanding?", asked Nagarjuna.[29] Karl Potter explains the answer to this challenge as one of context and framework, the emergence of broader general principles of understanding from thought processes that are limited in one framework.[30]Adi Shankara's challenge
Adi Shankara in the 8th century AD, like Nagarjuna earlier, examined the difference between the world one lives in and moksha, a state of freedom and release one hopes for.[31] Unlike Nagarjuna, Shankara considers the characteristics between the two. The world one lives in requires action as well as thought; our world, he suggests, is impossible without vyavahara (action and plurality). The world is interconnected, one object works on another, input is transformed into output, change is continuous and everywhere. Moksha, suggests Shankara,[24] is a final perfect, blissful state where there can be no change, where there can be no plurality of states. It has to be a state of thought and consciousness that excludes action.[31] He questioned: "How can action-oriented techniques by which we attain the first three goals of man (kama, artha and dharma) be useful to attain the last goal, namely moksha?"
Scholars[32] suggest Shankara's challenge to the concept of moksha parallels those of Plotinus against the Gnostics, with one important difference:[31] Plotinus accused the Gnostics of exchanging an anthropocentric set of virtues with a theocentric set in pursuit of salvation; Shankara challenged that the concept of moksha implied an exchange of anthropocentric set of virtues (dharma) with a blissful state that has no need for values. Shankara goes on to suggest that anthropocentric virtues suffice.
Comentários