Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 namaste. I read recently (in book "Ascetism in ancient India" by Haripada Chakraborti) that the word 'moksha' does not appear in the upanishads. I wonder if it is a factual statement. And if so, can the learned members care to speculate on why this word is conspicuous by its absence in the upanishads. Regards Gummuluru Murthy - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 Namaste, Svetashvatara upan: 6:16 ...sa.nskaara moksha sthiti bandha hetuH . Maitri upan.: 6:30 ....doshha-kshayaad hi mokshaH ..... 6:34:8 ...etaj j~nana.n cha moksha.n cha....... 6:34:11 mana eva manushhYaaNaa.n kaaraNaM bandhamokshayoH Muktika upan: 2:68 .....mokshaH syaad vaasanaakshayaH .... Chandogya upan.: 6:16:2 ....atha muchyate ... Brihad. upan.: 1:5:17 .......sarvasmaat putro mu~nchati .... Katha upan. 2:3:8 .....ya.n j~naatvaa muchyate jantuH...... There are numerous references to moksha in other upanishads [108]. Regards, s. advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste. > > I read recently (in book "Ascetism in ancient India" by > Haripada Chakraborti) that the word 'moksha' does not appear > in the upanishads. I wonder if it is a factual statement. > And if so, can the learned members care to speculate on why > this word is conspicuous by its absence in the upanishads. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 Namaste, Within few minutes after Murthygaru raised this important question regarding 'moksha,' Sunderji beautifully posted several quotations with the answers from the Upanishads. Such interactions between the learned members of this list benefit everyone in several ways: First, everything that is printed in a book by a known or unknown author may not necessarily be accurate. Second, when anyone sees some doubtful statements they could post them to the list and request for clarifications. This will benefit not only the poster, but everyone else also. Finally, when anyone sees some interesting and useful statements in any book, they could post them to the list so that everyone can enjoy and benefit from them. This list can and will serve better if more members participate in the deliberations in a small way. warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > Svetashvatara upan: 6:16 ...sa.nskaara moksha sthiti bandha hetuH . > > Maitri upan.: 6:30 ....doshha-kshayaad hi mokshaH ..... ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 yyyyyes! beauty. easily qualifies as a nominee for the *Advaitin Post of the Month* award! :-) hariH OM! _________________ Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > > Whether the term "moksha" has been used by the singing farmers ala Upanashidic Rishis or has been the later insertions to establish and perpetuate a "goal" of spirituality, thereby effectively establishing the power of control over the lesser mortals, the term moksha meaning liberation ,itself is an oxymoron. > > To seek Moksha, is to apriori assume that > A)there is an entity which can be "mokshed" (by whichever means) > B)That this entity is currently "unmokshed", bounded and thus seeks the liberation from the bondage. > > Both the apriori assumptions, in their very existence, perpetuate the bondage. > > Whereas "moksha" would denote the apperception that there is none to whom moksha itself is relevant. > > Even to say that the seeker is already free is a corruption. > > When Freedom and Liberation, both have no relevance, then....... > > Mis conceptual dos centavos > > Cheers > > Sandeep > - > Gummuluru Murthy > advaitin > Thursday, March 22, 2001 04:21 AM > the word 'moksha' in upanishads > > namaste. > > I read recently (in book "Ascetism in ancient India" by > Haripada Chakraborti) that the word 'moksha' does not appear > in the upanishads. I wonder if it is a factual statement. > And if so, can the learned members care to speculate on why > this word is conspicuous by its absence in the upanishads. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > - > > Sponsor > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server > For details, visit: /local/news.html > Post message: advaitin > Subscribe: advaitin- > Un: advaitin > URL to Advaitin: advaitin > File folder: advaitin > Link Folder: advaitin/links > Messages Folder: advaitin/messages > > > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server > For details, visit: /local/news.html > Post message: advaitin > Subscribe: advaitin- > Un: advaitin > URL to Advaitin: advaitin > File folder: advaitin > Link Folder: advaitin/links > Messages Folder: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 Hiya Gummuluru Whether the term "moksha" has been used by the singing farmers ala Upanashidic Rishis or has been the later insertions to establish and perpetuate a "goal" of spirituality, thereby effectively establishing the power of control over the lesser mortals, the term moksha meaning liberation ,itself is an oxymoron. To seek Moksha, is to apriori assume that A)there is an entity which can be "mokshed" (by whichever means) B)That this entity is currently "unmokshed", bounded and thus seeks the liberation from the bondage. Both the apriori assumptions, in their very existence, perpetuate the bondage. Whereas "moksha" would denote the apperception that there is none to whom moksha itself is relevant. Even to say that the seeker is already free is a corruption. When Freedom and Liberation, both have no relevance, then....... Mis conceptual dos centavos Cheers Sandeep - Gummuluru Murthy advaitin Thursday, March 22, 2001 04:21 AM the word 'moksha' in upanishads namaste. I read recently (in book "Ascetism in ancient India" by Haripada Chakraborti) that the word 'moksha' does not appear in the upanishads. I wonder if it is a factual statement. And if so, can the learned members care to speculate on why this word is conspicuous by its absence in the upanishads. Regards Gummuluru Murthy - Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Please Note the New Changes at the Mail Server For details, visit: /local/news.html Post message: advaitin Subscribe: advaitin- Un: advaitin URL to Advaitin: advaitin File folder: advaitin Link Folder: advaitin/links Messages Folder: advaitin/messages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 My opinion is that the author of the book you have quoted is inaccurate in his statement, as well as others on this list who have taken the author's words at the face value. I would take the same words with a pinch of salt! And here is why: the terms "atimokShA" and "vimokShA" appear in the bR^ihadAraNyaka. "mokSha" in Sanskrit stands for liberation from anything. "vimokShA" is a special kind of liberation that stands for the liberation of the highest kind. If the theory is that mokSha is an oxymoron, then vimokSha should be the highest oxymoron!! Again the term "vimokShye" appears in the chhAndogya upaniShad (see Shankara's commentary on 6.14.2). The term saMsAra-mokSha-sthiti-bandha-hetuH appears in the shvetAshvatara upaniShad. The gaNapati-upaniShad has the term "dharmArtha-kAma-mokShaM". I could go on, but I will stop here. If we accept there is no moxa, then it follows that there is no bondage either. With no bondage and no liberation, we might as well dump all scriptures into the sea and take to hedonism, since there is nothing to strive for, no higher ideal. From the pAramArthika point, there is indeed no liberation, no bondage, but we have to get to that stage to realize it. Otherwise, it will be like some ignorant person who only knows the equation E=mc^2 but does not know the REAL significance of it. Just memorizing the equation or parroting it will be in vain. Anand advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste. > > I read recently (in book "Ascetism in ancient India" by > Haripada Chakraborti) that the word 'moksha' does not appear > in the upanishads. I wonder if it is a factual statement. > And if so, can the learned members care to speculate on why > this word is conspicuous by its absence in the upanishads. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 Namaste Anandji: Well said! I will not be surprised if Frankji qualifies this reply for the nomination for the "Advaitin Post of the Month Award!" regards, Ram Chandran anandhudli writes: ....... If we accept there is no moxa, then it follows that there is no bondage either. With no bondage and no liberation, we might as well dump all scriptures into the sea and take to hedonism, since there is nothing to strive for, no higher ideal. From the pAramArthika point, there is indeed no liberation, no bondage, but we have to get to that stage to realize it. Otherwise, it will be like some ignorant person who only knows the equation E=mc^2 but does not know the REAL significance of it. Just memorizing the equation or parroting it will be in vain. Anand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 Hi Anand, - anandhudli advaitin Thursday, March 22, 2001 09:53 PM Re: the word 'moksha' in upanishads <SNIP> If we accept there is no moxa, then it follows that there is no bondage either. With no bondage and no liberation, we might as well dump all scriptures into the sea and take to hedonism, since there is nothing to strive for, no higher ideal. San: Who is the "we" that you referring to here, who can dump the scriptures in the sea and head for the beaches eyeing the beauties? <s> Who is the "we" who strives? Who is the "we" which decides not to strive? Who is the "we" who apriori concludes a "higher ideal" (and would that be anything else but an expression of his/her conditionings) and then work towards achieveing it? Produce that "entity" Anand, and I will liberate that entity from all it's bondage, this very moment, through the medium of cyber space. Where is "Anand" in the body-mind complex which society have labelled "Anand" to functionally differentiate it from another body-mind complex? ----------- From the pAramArthika point, there is indeed no liberation, no bondage, but we have to get to that stage to realize it. San: And I suggest to you, that the 'we" or the "me" can never realize that, no matter what song and dance it gets upto. For the "me" is the very obstacle. The apparent presence of phenomenon is the apparent absence of noumenon. ------------ otherwise, it will be like some ignorant person who only knows the equation E=mc^2 but does not know the REAL significance of it. Just memorizing the equation or parroting it will be in vain. San: Do you know Einstein shared, that the equation 'appeared to him as if from nowhere"? Incidentally, the basic tenet of that equation, which is that speed of Light is constant, that has been recently breached in experiments at the Princeton University. Some time back, this got posted through "Sandeep" in cyber space ----------- Hi, I wonder whether anybody here noticed that the speed of Light thought to be THE constant for Life, has been breached. On the breaking of the "ultimate" barrier, the speed of light currently sanctified at 186,000 miles per sec, I was in Europe few months back when the London Sunday Times carried a report on an experiment carried out at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, USA where "light pulco" has been accelerated to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,00 miles per sec. The details of the findings I am told had been submitted to the International Scientific journals "Nature" and "Science" for verification and validation before open publication. This validation and verification took place in the last month. The experiment has been validated and reported by the Science magazines and journals, including BBC, Washington Post and other leading newspapers. The implications of this finding, as I said are not mind- boggling but mind-annihilating.The Human Genome project is nothing in comparison. For the experiment showed that light pulse existed in two places at once. In effect, it is "leaping forward in time" (Sunday times) What is making the scientists aghast is that "if light can travel forward in time, it could carry information". This (carriage of information) is being hotly argued against, by the rest of the scientific community, but that to me is like a Scientific DNS(Dark Night of the Soul, where all your life long dearly cherished beliefs are getting exposed for what they are. Obviously you are pissed off, in agony) The breaching of the speed of Light, would breach one of the basic principles in Physics-Law of causality which is based on the premise that cause must come before effect. It would also shatter Einstein's theory of Relativity." (Sunday Times) However for me, the Princeton experiment is completely aligned to the premise or concept that mystics have indicated for the last 5,000 years, that everything that has happened, is happening, is to happen, have all, already happened. And thus has anything ever happened? Is there anything like a cause, an effect or are both "existing" together simultaneously? Is the totality of the Picture already IS? If yes, the concept of karma goes out of the window, the concept of effort which really is a process of becoming (from an un-enlightened state, you meditate or whatever your favorite poison, towards enlightenment), all that is OUT. Relating to this scientific development, else where in cyber space, a question was posed to me. How does these developments reflect on the concepts of karma and enlightenment. Let's take the concept of enlightenment, first. In the conceptual world of phenomenality, something has a meaning only on the basis of it's opposite. "Good" has no meaning unless the definition of "evil" is in place and mutually agreed. Saddam and Bill Clinton may not have an mutually agreeable definition, for example. The concept of "enlightenment" has no meaning unless you define what that state is to be, (which off course is a joke) and this you define by defining what an "Un-enlightened" state is to be. After all one can only know about freedom, when one defines what bondage is and pursues to be free, by accepting that one is bound in the first place. The very pursuit perpetuating the bondage, but let's get back to the question .. One then assumes that one is curently "un-enlightened" and then proceeds to adopt, swear by, "paths", "efforts", "practices", which one believes will move oneself from one state to the other. I wonder whether you see the absurdity of all this( akin a dog chasing it's own tail), but let's get back to the consequences of the breaching of the Speed of Light. When you define the two states of "un-enlightened" and a separate "enlightenemt", you are actually accepting the process of "becoming". You are "this" and you believe that you can become "that". And you assume that this "becoming" can be achieved through X, Y, Z, etc etc. With the assumption of "becoming", you give birth to the concepts of "time". as you need a postulate of "duration" in which this "becoming" is to be completed and you give birth to the concept of space, in order to cognize the "becoming" . With the birth of the concepts time and space, you give birth to the concept of the Causality, a cause, which occurs in time and gives birth to an effect, also in time and space. (X,Y,Z , can get me enlightenemnt or a Million dollars, ability to walk on water or seduce that blonde, whatever, a cause and an effect of that cause) Now with the breaching of the speed of Light, the experiment reached 300 times the current record at Cosmic Olympics of 300,00- kms per sec, why not 30,000 times the current standard, why not 3 Million times, why not infinite times? If speed of light is actually infinite (another concept), we have only been able to recognise it as 300 times 300,000 kms per sec as of now, what you are really seeing is that there is not even a trillionth of a nanosecond difference between the starting point of light and ending point of light. Existence in two place is simultaneous, Existence in infinite points is simultaneous. (At the moment, even the team at NEC, Princeton, do not claim this is possible, but as I said earlier that is like a Scientific DNS). Cause and effect IS simultaneously. All that has happened, is happening, is to happen, has already happened. The totality of the picture, is already there, was always. Hence the postulate of time goes out of the window and with that movement is an impossibility, and with movement becoming an impossibility, the postulate of space is a joke. Ergo, "becoming" is a joke, if totality of the picture IS already. Cause, "becoming" an effect, is a joke, because there is really no cause and effect. Causality, is thus a joke. The states of "un-enlightenment" and "enlightement" and movement between the two, is a joke. In oneness, which is nothing but "existing" at infinite point simultaneously, who is there "un-enlightened" which is to become "enlightened"? Let's now take our good old friend- karma. The concept of karma essentialy being the consequences of a previous "self" effecting the current "self" is all based on the process of "becoming" which is a joke. In oneness, who is laying karma on whom? My right hand reaches out in love and "shakes hand" with my left hand accruing "good" karma or reaches out in anger and slaps my left hand accruing "bad" karma, it's all I, all the time, isn't it? Dobeeee, Dobeee dooo. Sandeep ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2001 Report Share Posted March 24, 2001 advaitin, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote: > Namaste Anandji: > > Well said! I will not be surprised if Frankji > qualifies this reply for the nomination for the > "Advaitin Post of the Month Award!" > > regards, > > Ram Chandran > > anandhudli writes: > > ...... If we accept there is no moxa, then it follows > that there is no bondage either. With no bondage and > no liberation, we might as well dump all scriptures > into the sea and take to hedonism, since there is > nothing to strive for, no higher ideal. From the > pAramArthika point, there is indeed no liberation, no > bondage, but we have to get to that stage to realize > it. Otherwise, it will be like some ignorant person > who only knows the equation E=mc^2 but does not know > the REAL significance of it. Just memorizing the > equation or parroting it will be in vain. > > Anand Yes the exchange between not knowing & knowing, & seeker to sought is the greatest Love affair worth Living. Life wishes to be lived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.