“Among the various philosophical schools (Siddhantas) regarding Moksha propounded in India, which one is the truth? Which Acharya is correct?” — This was a question someone recently asked me. What is the ‘definitive’ answer to this?
Spiritual intellectual diversity is actually an indicator of India’s greatness and maturity of thought. India’s pride lies in the fact that spiritual freedom existed here without the mandates of any “enforcer,” and it continues to exist today. The inquiry into Moksha is a sign of an enlightened mind. Through debates regarding Dharma and Moksha, a massive tradition of study grew in India—a systematic, methodical way of researching and reasoning through the frameworks of Purvapaksha (the opponent’s view), Uttarpaksha (the rebuttal), and Siddhanta (the final established conclusion). Through this intellectual churning, the world’s most complex ideas emerged. The most intricate concepts underwent analysis at the highest levels. This is India’s true Jnana-Shakti (knowledge-power).
Viewed from another perspective, this also appears to have resulted in India’s weakness. It is true that excessive debate over Moksha gave birth to internal divisions and intellectual animosity. New logical theories were sometimes put forward solely to defeat others or to establish one’s own dominance. There were even instances where individuals, lacking any strong intent to actually strive for Moksha, clung to a particular Moksha-Siddhanta and engaged in street brawls.
“In India, as many people as there are, so many Darshanas (philosophies) exist” — this is both India’s strength and its weakness.
One cannot forget that during the era when proclamations of Moksha were overflowing, Kshatra-Dharma (the warrior’s duty/spirit) withered. The ‘Purvapaksha-Uttarpaksha’ methods of study remained limited to the mutual refutation of internal Indian ideas; the intellectual Purvapaksha study of external invaders’ ideologies did not take place. Consequently, ideologies centered purely on struggle came to be viewed as ‘Dharmas.’ While the country was being invaded, many of our philosophers were immersed in Moksha-Jijnasa (inquiry into liberation) and kept the people occupied with it as well. While the invaders possessed a completely external vision, these theorists held a completely internal vision. Providing the former with some ‘internal’ vision and the latter with some ‘external’ vision was the need of that time (and this time too). But there was no one to provide it.
If we look at why we have such a pull toward Moksha, we find that most philosophers were more haunted by the inquiry of “What is Moksha?” than “How should we live on Earth?” Animals live too. But “Man must know the truth of creation” is a sign of a high intellectual level. However, the irony is that thoughts of the ‘other world’ (Para) have created more discrimination and hatred among people than thoughts of ‘this world’ (Iha). This may seem strange, but it is the truth.
“Our proclamation regarding Deva/Truth is the greatest, the most sacred”—this is the feeling of every proponent. While the founders of various Mathas and Siddhantas showed intellectual differences and philosophical debates, their followers often ended up in physical altercations!
To whom does ‘Truth’ belong? Who is the one to definitively decide that “Moksha is only this, and this is how it is attained”? Is ‘your Moksha’ your experience, your awareness, or someone else’s opinion? Just as a knowledgeable person shows the way to the uninitiated, the responsibility of Gurus and Acharyas is only to ‘show the path.’ But the one who must walk the path is you. Just as there are differences in mental temperaments among everyone, there are different temperaments among Gurus too. The ultimate responsibility to understand the nature of the path you are walking is yours alone. The idea of reaching the goal through a ‘group discussion’ does not belong to the realm of Adhyatma.
When different Gurus describe different forms and paths, what should one do? The answer is found in the Gita. What we find in the Bhagavad Gita is a synthesis (Samanvaya) of diverse thoughts and paths. Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, Tyaga, Sannyasa, Vairagya, Sankhya, Yoga, Kshatra, war, the here, the hereafter, duty, Maya, reality, time, the transient, the imperishable, Prakriti, Vikriti, Atman, Brahman, Purusha, Avyakta, Anadi, Ananta, Achintya—it beautifully places the ‘Iha’ (this world) that our intellect can grasp and the ‘Para’ (the beyond) that challenges it. This is the beauty of the Gita. Yet, we see many different ‘definitive’ proclamations claiming, “This alone is the essence of the Gita!”
This was the case in India. Outside India, however, massive wars have been fought over questions of heaven, hell, God, and so on. In that same frenzy, India was invaded. It continues even now. Agencies have cropped up to provide ‘Jannat’ or ‘Salvation.’ Extremists have picked up guns to start ‘giving Moksha’ to people! There are zealots who truly believe, “By bringing everyone into our faith, we are doing good for the world!”
In the background of this kind of extremism and intensity, the idea that “as many temperaments as there are, so many Siddhantas” seems quite beautiful.
In Islam, the concept of Moksha does not exist. There is the doctrine of eternal heaven and eternal hell. There is no rebirth. On the ‘Final Day’ (Qayamat), God delivers ‘judgment’ to all beings of creation according to their deeds. In Christianity, too, the concept of Moksha is absent. There are concepts of ‘Eternal Heaven’ (Salvation) and ‘Eternal Hell.’ The argument held by Christian churches is that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” Here, what a person did while alive is not primary. There is no Karma-Siddhanta. It is enough if you believe in a specific God. Your faith has the power to pardon all the mistakes of the faithful.
Mahatma Gandhi did not agree with this kind of ideology. To those who came to convert him, he said:
“According to me, what a person does while alive is what matters. Without the transformation of the sinner’s heart, without them feeling remorse for their sins, how can you remove their sins? This is an irrational system.”
At one point in time, even in India, a trend similar to this West Asian thought began to grow. The idea that “Liberation is not attained until one becomes a slave to the Guru” reached an extreme. It was forgotten that various philosophical Siddhantas exist so that one can examine them and engage in Sadhana (practice). The Upanishadic concept of ‘Inquiry’ (Anveshana) vanished, and concepts of ‘Belief’ and ‘Loyalty’ became dominant.
Just as it would be ridiculous if people fought saying, “I am a staunch follower of the Theory of Relativity” or “I am a staunch follower of Quantum Theory, Relativity is wrong,” people became divided in the name of various Moksha-Siddhantas. Their loyal Mathas, the proclamations and victories of their founders, and the grace of the current pontiffs became more important than personal Sadhana. The Mathas, which were meant to be institutions of Dharma, knowledge, and guidance, became organizations for ‘devotees’ to carry on their shoulders. ‘Pada-puja’ (worship of the feet) became greater than the ‘pursuit of knowledge.’ An innocent devotion grew, believing that if one keeps performing the Guru’s pada-puja daily, knowledge will come automatically. The strong wave arose that different Darshanas were not just various textbooks providing the background and guidance needed for Moksha, but were themselves the actual attainers of Moksha. Book-worship became greater than study!
Stories of the ‘conquests’ (Digvijaya) of their respective Acharyas and examples of how they ‘rebuked’ others gave joy to ‘fundamentalist devotees.’ The feeling arose that “we are blessed to be the supreme loyalists of such a Guru.” The determination grew that “we must now stand firm for our philosophy.”
This kind of philosophical or intellectual conviction is not wrong. But when it exceeds the individual level and manifests in a collective, organizational dimension, it can reach dangerous stages. We see such examples in history. Even now, fundamentalist conviction is the root of all sectarian conflicts. At an individual level, all convictions are fine. But if a split occurs at the group level between the ‘group of believers’ and ‘the group of others,’ the whole world splits into two: ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers.’ ‘Organized hatred’ is created between them.
Those who have no personal understanding or experience of what Moksha is, and who have not made the slightest effort toward it, start fighting in the streets on behalf of various Moksha-Siddhantas and for the ‘Moksha’ of their group and others. The feeling solidifies in them that “We must bring the whole world under our Siddhanta; let everyone be uplifted, poor souls; we must annihilate all ‘false’ theories other than ours.” This is the danger brought by the excess of faith.
Just like the ‘Semitic’ faiths of West Asia (perhaps under their influence), India too has seen ‘organizational’ assertions, refutations, and ‘conquests’ regarding Moksha. Followers of all Gurus have stopped thinking ‘for themselves’ and have taken to ‘only proclaiming’ their Guru’s Siddhanta.
It has been forgotten that all Acharyas were ‘self-thinkers’ and ‘independent thinkers.’ It was precisely because they were independent thinkers that they formulated independent Siddhantas. That is how we received so many philosophical systems. Their message to us is: “You too become independent thinkers.”
Therefore, there is no ‘definitive’ answer to the question of which Acharya is right and who is not. The Vedic concept of ‘Fullness’ (Purnatva), the Buddhist concept of ‘Emptiness’ (Shunyatva), and the modern scientists’ concept of ‘Singularity’—all resemble each other in the outer dimension. When it comes to the dimension of details, they become different stances. Similarly, it is appropriate to say, “Consider the Siddhanta that suits your temperament as your guide.” There is nothing saying you cannot find a new Siddhanta yourself. By doing so, you are not violating any loyalty. In the world of Adhyatma, there is no hereditary Guru-seat or hereditary disciple-seat. The right path, perhaps, is for Gurus to accept disciples and disciples to accept Gurus through personal choice. Can it be said that Acharyas existed only in history and no new Acharyas will come in the future? Who knows, the next new Vishvamitra or the new Acharya might be you!
Author
