dharma ingalls

7/27/2019 Dharma Ingalls

1/9

Dharma and MoksaAuthor(s): Daniel H. H. Ingalls

Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Apr. - Jul., 1957), pp. 41-48Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1396833 .

Accessed: 10/09/2013 13:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy

East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.95.253.17 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:23:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1396833?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1396833?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp


2/9

DANIEL H. H. INGALLS

DAarmandMohsaIN WRITING OF dharmandmoksa shalltake smypointofdeparturehepaperwhich rofessoraubeshaswrittenn the conflictofvirtuendfaith n theEuropeanradition.' aubes'paper s very rief.It makes nepoint, ut tmakes tclearly,ndit s a crucial ne. In theWest,he points ut,we havea systemfethics,riginally socialethics

appropriateoa citytate, ut newhich ecamemore ndmore esocializedandindividualizedntilunder heRomanEmpiretbecame bout s ego-centrics ethics anbecome.This ort fethics asthen hallengedyvari-ous systemsf rrationalelief r faithwhich eifiedhe stimulusovirtuenot nmanbut na power eyond im: nIsis, nDemeter,nd so on,butespeciallyn the Christian od. Virtue n itsolder enseofhuman-basedperfectioname to be consideredride, sort fvice. To quoteSt.Paul,"Nowwe aredeliveredromhe aw,... thatweshould ervennewnessfspiritnd not ntheoldness fthe etter."2 aubesmakes ut that hehis-tory fEuropean thics ince headvent fChristianityasbeen a contestbackand forth etween hese wo deals. I dare ayhe would dmit thermomentanthehistoryfEuropeanthics,uthe is rightncalling hisprimaryne.Now, it maybe useful o observewhetherhesameconflictccursnIndia. Our observation ay eadus toconsider hat he ndiansmeant ydharmandmoksa, nd tounderstandosome xtent ow ndianreligiondiffersromhat fEurope.One cancertainlyindn India textswhich emind s ofthetextwhichTaubes uotes: he tricturesfPlotinusgainstheGnostics.This chool,"saysPlotinus,is convictedy tsneglect fall mention fvirtue.... Fortosay LooktoGod,' snothelpful ithoutome nstructions towhat hislookingmports."3I havebeenmakingately translationfBhdskara'sommentaryn theGilt,a commentaryhich s highly rgumentativendwhich onstantlyfightsndefensefa socialmoralitygainsthe heoriesfSarhkara,hich

'See above, pp. 19-24.2Romans 7:6.8Plotinus, Enneads, Stephen MacKennas, trans. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1957), II.9,15.

41

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

42 DANIEL H. H. INGALLSin Bhiskara'sopinionare quite destructive fmorality. shall quote a fewpassagesto show howsimilar he entences ing o those fPlotinus.ActuallyI believethesimilaritys superficial,utwhy believethis leaveuntil ater.Bhiskara comments n the verse: "He who knows the selfto be inde-structible,ternal,unborn,unchanging,how should that man cause to bekilled anyoneor kill anyone.'"

Afterglossingeach word in orderto give the literalmeaning,Bhdskaraturns o refute hereligious nthusiast arhikara:Heresomephilosophersho retoo azy o work or iberationmoksa)explaintheverse y mputingo theBlessed ne thefollowingoctrine:For hewisemanall worksre xcluded;uch stheBlessed ne's ntentionnthis assage. heexpres-sion kills"susedmerelys anexample.Workswhich reenjoinednscripturereenjoinednly n the gnorant.his s the udgmentftheBlessed ne."5Thisexplanationf theBlessed ne's ntentionhat aysno attentionothepre-cedingwords f the extwillnotdo. Why?Because t s tourgeArjuna ntobattlethat henature f theself s heredescribed. avingtoldhim, Therefore,ight,Bh7rata,"6od setsoutto establishherightnessfthiswith hewords It is notborn,"tc.' If the ntentionfthis ersewere herenouncingfallwork,urelytshould othavebeentold oArjuna.Justuppose hat heBlessedOne hadstatedthatworkswere mpossibleor hewisemanwho knows hat he elf s voidofthesixorganiclterations.he samemightust s well holdtrue fArjuna,nwhichcase he would ease o act.Furthermore,ll thefollowingerseswould e improper.Accordingly,ne should otcherish vainhope,nor etone'smindbe temptedoforsake ne'smoral uty dharma), hinking,Letus just it here omfortablyndreceiveiberationmoksa)."

Again:The distinctionfgood ndevil, fbound ndreleased,its nlywith urview.8Or:A justbattle,hat s,one which oes notdepart rommoralitydharma), hanthisnothing akes or reaterood.Forothers,oo, dherenceotheir roperodeofmoralsmakes orgood. In thiswaythetext ombinesnowledgendworks sbothmakingor ood.9One will admit that some similarity xistsbetweenBhdskara's ttitudeand thatof Plotinus. Bothmen are incensed t a religious nthusiasmwhichsets aside themorality f everydayife. What differencexistsbetween heIndian and theEuropeanattitude an bestbe seenbyexamining hehistoryof Indian ethics. To me, at least, t can bestbe seen in thisway,for cansee no use in comparing wo statements ut of historical ontext nlessone4Gitd 2.22 (Bhiskara, = 2.21 Samrkara).'Bhiskara quotes the view of his opponents here almost word for word fromgamkara.

BGitd 2.19 = Gild 2.18 (amrikara).7Gtld 2.21 = Gild 2.20 (amrhkara). "Gitd 2.13 = Gild 2.12 (amrikara).9Gitd 2.32 = Gild 2.31 (arihkara).



4/9


5/9

44 DANIEL H. H. INGALLSpadi, n banishment,henplanninghewar, n the ncidentsfthewar,andfinallyt thetime fvictory.heMahabharata ouldreally e a me-diocre roductionf t werenotfor his. Theverses un onstantlyodog-gerel; heresnone f ts ciencertheoryhat annot e foundmore learlyexpressednother exts.Butthemoral ituationsnd thehuman esponseto themreunique.Thevirtuef virtuesnthe anskritpic s what nemightalldiscipline.The favoriteanskrit ordsyoga, puttingfoneselfnderheyoke, per-sonaltrainingeryiketheStoic skisis o which aubes efers. nedisciplineshe enses ythemind,hemindbythe udgment,udgmentytheveryelf.Otherwordslsoareused: pramada,on-carelessness;hirata,dhairyam,hichhave the doublemeaning f firmnessndwisdom.Onemust lways e onthe ookout; nemust o nothingarelessly.n Jainismthis ermpramtdasa favoritene.ThetrueJainamust ea manofenor-mous nergy,ever elaxing isattentionor moment. o returno theepic, manwhohassodisciplinedimselfhat his arefulnessomes obewhat nemightall second atureo him scalled tmavin,iterallymanwith self.The termsused ikeotherdiomaticxpressions,or xample,hastavan-amanwith hand: t s saidof perfectowmanhat ehandleshisweaponnaturally,s thoughtwere part f him. Themanwith selfacts lwayswith hehighestirtuefwhich man scapable. t hasbecomehis natureo to act.He is a mah,tma,hat s,heisgreat.Now, thisdiscipline,his raining,omesfromwithinhe manhimselfandfrom owherelse. Thisnotions universaln ancientndia. It is ascommonnBuddhisms inthe pics."Byourselves e doevil;byourselveswe do good.TheBuddha nly hows heway."" EarlyBuddhismctuallycarrieshe mplicationsurtherhan he pic; t nsistsn freewill. But venin theepicfreewillhastneupperhand.Onlywhen man's ffortsfrus-trated r whenhe is overcome ith rief oeshe become predestinarian.The blindDhrtardstra,oreseeingefeat,may ay, I think ersistentimemustmake tsround, orcan I more scape t than herim an leavethewheel,"12ndsimilar emarksrefrequent ithDhrtaristra,l3s they rewith thers hoare facedwithdeath rwho ament omegrievousoss."4But the successful an orwoman s always n upholderffreewill. Yudhisthira's otherays o him, Kings rethe cause ofthetimes, ottheenough. But if we accept the typology,we must say that the hierarchyof types as it appears in theaction of the epic is very different rom that of the reflective hapters of the Mahibhdrata. Arjuna,not Yudhisthira, is the hero of the epic.

1Dhammapada XII. 9; XX. 4.'2Mfahibhdrata Poona ed.) 5.50.58. '3E.g., Mahdbhdrata 5.32.12; 6.3.44."'E.g. Mahdbhdrata1.34.3; Rdmayana,Bombay ed., 6. 10.23.25.



6/9

DHARMA AND MOKSA 45timesthe cause ofkings."5 This association f successwiththe doctrine ffreewill or "human effort"purusakara) was felt o clearly hatamongtheways of bringing bout a king's downfall is given the followingsimpleadvice: "Belittle freewill to him,and emphasizedestiny."'1In the foregoing emarks have considered harmaonlyon the humanplane,as an ideal orgoal of humanmorality.The wordhas a muchbroadermeaningand can be applied to cosmological regularitys well as human.Since this aspectof theterm s well treated n Dr. van Buitenen'spaper,'7there s no need forme to discuss t at thispoint.The notionofmoksa s a much aterone in thehistoryf Indianthoughtthanthe notionof dharma. If one looks at the various chematawhich theIndians have made of lifeand experience,moksacomes as one oftheHindufourths hatwere addedon to Vedictriads.Therewere the threeVedicstagesof life: studentship, ouseholdership,nd retirement.Hinduism added afourth:completeabandonment.There were three Vedic modes of experi-ence: waking,dream, nddeepsleep. Hinduism dded thetur-yam,hestagebeyonddeep sleep. There were threephonemesof om: a,u,and m. Hindu-ism added the fourth,he sound which is not heard. So also to the threegoals of man: kama, artha, nd dharma,moksawas added as a fourth.The notion is first xpressedverbally.One is mucyate:freed,released.The nounmoksacomes ater. A rival term s apavarga: removal, eparation.In the Vedic-Hindu traditionwe do not meet these nouns until the lateUpanisads (Svetavatara, Maitri) and the second layerof the epic. Whatis more,therewereorthodox chools whichrefused o recognizemoksaformanycenturies.The Mimihmsdeniedthegoal ofmoksauntilwell into themedievalperiod,untiltheeighth entury ith thecomingofKumi.rila. Thecentralconcernof theMimirhs~was the Vedic ritual. If theythought fwhat lay beyondthisworld,the conceptof heaven was enough to satisfytheir uriositynd desire.

Moksa meansfreedom,iberation.Freedomfromwhat? Fromsuffering,fromthe frustrationsf desire,fromchange. Characteristically oksa hasbeen conceived s a goal, notan attitude,lthough here redigressionsromthe main trendof Indian religiousdevelopmentwhere the latter nterpreta-tion is offered.To thosewho acceptedthegoal of moksa itwas a goal be-yonddharma. In theepic texts,however, nd in mostorthodox iterature,moksa was not thoughtto be gained by any radicallydifferent eans ortechniquefromthat by whichone gained dharma. By self-disciplineneattainsdharma: a just,firm, nwavering ositionwithregardto theworldand society. By moksa one becomes even more firm.There is now no pos-15Mahabhdrata5.130.15; cf. 12.70.25; 12.92.6.6lIbid.,Mahbhbdrala 12.106.20. "1See above, pp. 25-32.



7/9

46 DANIEL H. H. INGALLSsibilityf alteration. he historyfSfikhya s instructiven thisrespect.In theoldest exts hereadersurged omagnifyis attvamaltruism,is-passion).He should lough ff ispassionndfolly ntil e s nstinctithsattvam.Thisis theoldestSiimkhya. he GJta oesa stepfarther. hepupil hould etbeyondll three trands. e must lough ff ven attvam,for hat oocanbindhim oworldlyife.How is hetodo this?TheGitaoffersvidence nough.The methods preciselyheold method f dis-cipline; t simply oesa stepfurther.Now, fthis armoniousonceptf moksa ad remainednchangedherecould have beenno real conflict etween harma nd moksa.Dharmawould till nvisage ociety; oksawouldbe rrefragable.ut he wo ouldberegardedspointslong singleourney,journeyorwhichheviaticumwasdisciplinendself-training.I havespoken ereofmoksa s itappearswithinheepicandother r-thodox iterature.here s goodevidence hat theconcept riginatedncircles ar emoved rom his rea, mong ractitionersftrancendecstasy,that s,among orcerers, edicinemen, ndyogis, aking he word n itspopular atherhan ts iterary-philosophicalense.These riginsretreatedin somedetailn vanBuitenen'saper.Again, neseeswithinhe iterature,withinhemain raditionsfHinduismndBuddhism,hat heharmonyfdharmandmoksahasbeenchallengedmore hanonce. Or, f were omakeuseofvanBuitenen'sramework,might ay hatmore han nce nthegreat raditionsharma ndmoksahavebeenpulled apart o resumetheir riginalntinomy.orpurposesfsimplicity,nemay peak fthreetypes fchallenge.First,heres the hallengefNdgdrjuna2ndcentury,.D.). Nigirjunapoints utthediscrepanciesetween he world n whichwe live and thenirvanawewish o attain.Thetwothingsre so differenthat here eallycan be no relation etweenhem.The areaofdiscrepancyowhichNi-garjunamost ften eferss an intellectualne. Theway n whichwetrainourselvesothink ithinheworkadayorld implyannot elpustoattainnirvana.There s inNdgdrjunao new,unworldly orality,o fiat romGod to supersedeheold categoriesf virtue. n fact,N4igirjuna'school,theSainyav~da,asverywary fapplyingts dialecticgainst hevirtues.Actuallyome fthe!most ppealing xpressionsfBuddhist oralityppearprecisely ithin his chool,s,for xample,ntheSiksasamuccayafgdnti-deva.Thedialectics directedathergainsthe awsofpre-moksahought.The steady ath omoksahasbeenbrokenntwo,butthecleavage s notthat fPhiloor St.Paul: individual oralityere nddivinemoralityhere.



8/9


9/9

48 DANIELH. H. INGALLStheworshipfGod,on inging isname, nnointingis mage, eeping iminmind onstantly:sRdmdnuja uts t, oconstantlyhat ne comes o feelthat ne cannotive withouthis oving resence.When thepriestsftheVaisnava egan orationalizeheir eligion,hey cceptedhe rthodoxextsofVedintabut mphasizedhe lementsn those exts hatwere ompatiblewith heir wnreligiousxperience. heyemphasizedove and adorationrather hanworksndknowledge. heyemphasizedrasada, heGraceofGod,rather han he nthropocentricirtues.n fact,ccordingothedoc-trine fthese hilosophers,necanattain o virtuenly hroughhegraceofGod. Here wefind lmost reciselyheChristianosition.Accordingly,inthenineteenthentury,hen uropeananskritistsor hemost artwerestillChristians,twas theVaisnava hilosophersn thewholewhom heypreferred-sohibaut, rierson, axMiiller,ndothers.I shallnot race hehistoryfthis hird reakn the teadyath omoksa.The argumentsere arriednbymany uthors hom know nly t sec-ond hand:byVallabha, ytheGosvdmisnBengal, ythecatsect ndthemonkeyect n the extremeouth.Rather, should ike to concludewitha fewgeneralitiesnd a caveat.If one views hewhole xtent f ndian eligiousndphilosophicalitera-ture, ne seesthat he onflictf dharmandmoksasthe xceptionatherthan herule;furthermore,hatwherethasoccurredt smore ftenhannotdifferentrom heEuropeanonflictfvirtue nd faith.Onemay ddthat hebreaknthe teady ath n Indiahasalways eenmadebymonks,that s,bymembersfa religiousrderwho hadwithdrawnromociety,who withheldhemselvesrommarriage,amily,nd casteduties,ndsohadalreadyroken ith hepath fdharma ithinheir wn ife-experience.Someofthesemonasticisharmonizersre mportant,reamong hegreat-estthinkersnd iteraryrtists hich ndiahasproduced,ndtheirwritingsdeserve lose tudy. utonemust ecareful,ndhere omesmy aveat, otto jump oconclusionsbout ndian hilosophyndreligionrom perusalof theirworks.20

" Dr. van Buitenen and I have used an historical and textual method in papers which bear thesame title. And yet we come to different onclusions. Van Buitenen finds dharma and moksa to beessentially ncompatible goals. On the other hand, I findthem to have been usually harmonizedwithina single religiouspath. In the discussionwhich followed our hearingof each other's papers it appearedthat we were in agreementas to the following facts. The ideals of dharma and moksa arose in verydifferentmilieus, and these ideals produced sharp differencesn the ways of life of their early adherents.Moksa, however, became "respectable" at a fairly,earlyperiod, that is, it was accepted into the Vedictradition. From this time onward the majorityof Hindu society attemptedto harmonize the older andyounger goals. Always there were some men, and a few of them among India's greatestreligious lead-ers,who insistedon the contradiction between dharma and moksa.It would seem, therefore,that the differencebetween van Buitenen's paper and mine is a differ-ence in what we select to typifya long religious tradition. He has selected the innovators,the profes-sionals, so to speak. I have selected the great mass of believers, or, perhaps one might better say,acquiescers. Which selection is preferable depends on one's purpose. The first s useful for the historyof the psychological phenomena of religion,Lhe second for its social phenomena. The historyof reli-gion, if unqualified,should include both.

This content downloaded from 146 95 253 17 on Tue 10 Sep 2013 13:23:27 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

dharma ingalls

Documents