MOKSHA-DHARMA : RELIGION AS LIBERATION

Towards a Hindu Theology of Liberation.

Francis X. D'Sa, S.J.

INTRODUCTION:

Any one who has visited or visits Modern Hinduism might possibly be

shocked by a title such as this. The pictures that readily come to one's mind

when speaking of Modern Hinduism though varied are far from being vague:

we have on the one hand some holy Men like the Official Saint (Vinoba

Bhave) representing a Hindu Tradition that consists in fasting unto death in

the cause of cow-protection but withdrawing into the shell of silence when a

regime turns dictatorial or when Hindus and Muslims jump at each others'

throats. Similarly we have the mushrooming Gurus preaching instant Nirvana

a la instant Nescafe. Distinctly different and surely more serious are the

Mayavadins advocating withdrawal from the world of avidya in the general

direction of the himalayan caves. On the side of the hoi polloi, Religion has

turned into moralism, emotionalism and individualism to say nothing of

ritualism and yatras which to all purposes and intents give the impression of

being the creation of some spiritual insurance company which though openly

demanding other-worldly attitudes from the clientele is itself clearly bent on

this-worldly advantages. Some of the social practices too, like caste and

oppression of women, which owe their origin to the Hindu Traditions, are not

only not religious; they are not even human by any decent standard. To

crown it all one seeks justification for this in the religious doctrines of Karma

and Punarjanma. One could go on multiplying instances in order to lay bare

the nakedness of these Traditions. But this would be morally unfair,

practically counterproductive and methodologically unsound. Morally unfair

for the simple reason that there is no religious Tradition in the world [72]---

which would be in a position to cast the first stone; it would be practically

counter-productive because, apart from the fact that each one firmly

imagines that his own brand of religious convictions is uniquely true and

hence does not brook any adverse criticism, no one is happy to have his

weak-points exhibited to one and sundry. Criticism be it ever so positive is

hard to accept, and usually leads to counter-criticism. Worst of all such an

approach is methodologically unsound. Genuinely understanding (='standing

under the spell of' ! [R. Panikkar]) a religious Tradition is to be acquired not

from negative practices, nor from positive virtues, nor from the 'outside' as

it were, but by dwelling in it. One has to enter the originary experience of

the Tradition through the doors of its Mythology and its Philosophy (or

Philosophies), dwell within it and stand under its spell. A new vision will

emerge, a new horizon of meaning will appear and the same things will look

different. The articulation of this new vision and, the new horizon will be a

revivification, not a dead repetition of the old myths and metaphors1 . This

will usher in the beginning of a new spring. The result will be the growth, of

not addition to, the old Religion.

1 . Throughout this essay I shall be speaking of Myth and Metaphor in a positive manner. Myth is not something to be exploded but to be experienced and metaphor, in contradistinction to figure of speech, is indispensable to the experience it incarnates and aims at evoking.

It is only such a stance that will permit growth on the one hand and

cross-fertilizations of different Traditions on the other. One of the very few

who have done yeomen service in this regard is Raimundo Panikkar, who

articulates a relevant methodological principle in proclamatory language: "I

'left' as a Christian, I 'found' myself a Hindu and I 'return' a Buddhist,

without having ceased to be a Christian2 . How Panikkar 'found' himself a

Hindu is profoundly witnessed to in his The Vedic Experience. Mantramanjari.

New York 1979.

Following a method like the one put forward by Panikkar I want to

verbalize what I think is the specific contribution of at least one major Hindu

Tradition to a Theology of Liberation. I say specific because I find it specific

to the world-view of the Hindu Traditions. By contribution I mean a positive

contribution in the sense of what helps discover Significance and Meaning-

fulness in life3 . And by one major Hindu Tradition I mean the originary

Tradition of the Bhagavadgita before the birth of the Gita-Commentaries4 .

The expression 'a Theology of Liberation' [73]--- Implies, first of all, that

there could be more than one Theology of Liberation5 , secondly, that it is a 2 . See R. Panikkar, THE INTRARELIGIOUS DIALOGUE. (Paulist Press) New York 1978. P. 2. 3. By significance and Meaningfulness, both of which I use as synonyms. I mean that Meaning in life which is irreducible to any purely spece-time category. It makes life worth living but its coming into being is beyond our grasp; it cannot be caused at will. It is given; it is a grace See my SHABDAPRAMANYAM IN SHABARA AND KUMARILA. Towards a Study of the Mimamsa Experience of Language. Vienna 1980. PP. 24.28. 4 . The Bhagavadgita before the birth of the commentaries is itself a commentary on a specific experience. I am here not concerned with the question of whether the experience that is put forward in the 700 shlokas on which Samkara is commenting is the Ur-Gita or not. I am simply prescinding from this question. 5 . I am aware of the problems I am introducing into another world view by employing the word Theology from the Christian world view. But we are at this moment of our history (as Christian Indians) on the way to discovering our own specific vocabulary but this is going to

systematic search for ultimately meaningful symbols; and thirdly, that such

a search is for liberation and is significant in the context of the present

problems of India: the lack of economic and political freedom, the absence

of social justice and ecological balance, the crushing burden of over-

population, illiteracy and superstition, the inhuman growth of cities and

slums, the neglect of the rural population and rural growth, the babylonic

disunity among the different and differing religious Traditions and Tongues,

the debilitating effects of the practice of caste on human relations and

economic and political progress, etc, etc.

1. METHODOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS

At the very start I also would like to make clear my methodological

presuppositions. Firstly I hold that religious experience is expressed through

myths and metaphors.6 Myths and metaphors share in a common finality:

be both an arduous and a long Journey. Instead of trying something new at this juncture where the word Theology is concerned, I use it, aware of the misunderstandings it might possibly cause. Or has someone a better suggestion? I am open to it. Similarly the word Liberation has its own connotations but employing it in the context of Mokshadharma I am hoping it will take on some mokshanic connotations too. 6 . There are two aspects to our knowing: informational and transformation. The purpose of the one is to inform and the purpose of the other is to Transform Through The Information that is given. Depending on the stress in the context one will have to explore whether it is the informative or the transformative laguage-aspect that is the primary purpose of the communication. If the second, then the language is that of myth and metaphor. By that I am not implying that myth and metaphor are not different from each other. By that I only mean that the Type of language they belong to is the same Religious experience is expressed through either, or through both of them. Though the understanding of myth and metaphor is different according to each writer. I think, the general direction of people like R. Panikkar and P. Ricoeur appears to be the same. It is because of this that I refer the Reader to their writings. For Panikkar see his MYTH, FAITH AND HERMENEUTICS. Cross-Cultural Studies. (Paulist Press). New York 1979. For Ricoeur see his Biblical Hermeneutics SEMEIA, 4 (1975). PP. 29.148.

they aim not so much at informing the Reader as transforming him. Hence

the main purpose is not to communicate information but an experience.

From this viewpoint, the contents as such of both myth and metaphor are

secondary, the structure is primary7 . Myths differ from metaphors in that

the contents of the former are cosmic, cosmogonic, mythic and

mythological; while those of the latter are the realities of the world of space

and time. The mode of functioning of both is evocative (not merely

emotive) since the whole being of the Reader is affected. Myths and

metaphors make use of their contents (not for their own sake but) through

their meaning to point beyond themselves to and expreses their

Meaningfulness. If for example a myth speaks of a primal, cosmic Man from

which the gods and human beings, earth and heaven and all things come and

to which the whole universe returns then the description of the primal Man

is not to be thought of as the aim of the myth. Rather its aim is to evoke in

the Reader an experience of total dependence, a realization of the

interconnectedness of things, etc. The Interconnectedness and

interdependence that is spoken of is used as a ladder as it were to create an

experience of dependence on Being, and of interdependence among beings,

etc. And if a metaphor speaks of the Absolute as Father, the intention is not

so much to predicate [74]---the Fatherhood of the Absolute as to make use

of Fatherhood in order to evoke in the Reader an experience of belonging, of

being cared for, of being 'care-free' of feeling 'secure' and being without

anxiety.

7 . See footnote 6. The structure of myth and metaphor is different from that of informative language. In the structure of the former the Over-Plus Of Meaning is prominent. In my vocabulary I refer to this as the Meaningfulness of meaning. The mode of reference in this matter is evocation, not description.

If this is granted then the ritual repetition of religious myths and

metaphors will not be enough to make them come alive. For myths and

metaphors like Men are born in a specific age and milieu, where they are

obviously evocative but with the changing of times and places, their

Meaningfulness is not necessarily obvious. Mere proclamation that the

Kingdom of Heaven is like the mustard-seed is not enough to make it

evocative to today's Listeners. One will have to interpret the parable, that is

to say, one will have to re-write the parable in as much as it becomes

evocative to oneself. There's the rub. For unless it is evocative to oneself,

one will not be in a position to interpret the parable. For Parable is an

enlarged metaphor and metaphor is a linguistic structure that is

indispensable to the expression of certain experiences. Without experience

there is no metaphor, at the most we may have figures of speech8 . Hence

for interpreting a parable it is first necessary to experience it as meaningful.

An interpretation therefore is an up-to-dating of a metaphor whereas

explanation is an up-to-dating of information. Accordingly we can have

(indeed we should have) more than one interpretation but this is not

possible in the case of explanation. There will be as many interpretations of

an originary metaphor as there are experiences and they will be relevant in

the measure in which they are evocative9 .

8 . By figure of speech I am meaning decorative or ornamental language which strictly speaking can be dispensed with. Metaphor on the other hand is indispensable to the experience that it purports to evoke. 9 . See Panikkar's brilliant 'The Texture of a Text: in response to P. Ricoeur, POINT OF CONTACT 5 (1978) PP. 51-64.

In searching for a contribution from the Hindu Traditions towards a

Theology of Liberation, we cannot avoid the task of interpreting certain

metaphors which are basic to the originary Hindu experience. The relevance

of such interpretations is measured by their evocative power. At the same

time, the effectiveness of an interpretation demands that the metaphor be

interpreted within the parameters of the world-view in which it was born,

since, for example to interpret the metaphor of karma-and-punarjanma of

the Indian world-view in the context of the western-christian world-view

would be to do violence to the nature of the metaphor. An interpretation

has [75]---normally to be faithful to the horizon of understanding where the

metaphor first appeared.10 Interpretation is necessary, for without an

interpretation an originary metaphor will be as good as dead, as is the case

with the metaphor of karma-and-punarjanma. It appears to be alive but that

is merely an illusion. This metaphor is now being interpreted literally by the

Hindu Traditions. And a literal interpretation is the simplest and most

efficient way of killing a metaphor. In as much as the metaphors of a

Tradition are dead in that much is that religious Tradition dead. For it is in

the nature of metaphors to evoke, not to give information about God or

about life after death.

To conclude then: religious experience is expressed through myths

and metaphors (of language and ritual). For them to be meaningful in a new

age they have to be interpreted but in such a manner that they remain

10 . R Panikkar's MYTH, FAITH AND HERMENEUTICS, P. 105: "The golden rule of all hermeneutic is simply that the interpreted thing can be recognized in the interpretation. This implies that Inter-Pretation must not be Extra-Pretation, but a mediation between the auto-understanding of the interpreted thing and the hetero-understanding realized by the interpreter."

faithful to the world in which they were born. However it seems to be the

fate of the major myths and metaphors (of the world religions) to be reified,

that is, to be explained literally; that is the end of their evocation. It is

through interpretations that myths and metaphors are kept alive, since

interpret-ations are fresh expressions of a fresh experience. Merely

repeating myths and metaphors verbally may create the semblance of

evocation; but it is not so. Myths and metaphors that are alive affect not

only the emotions but our very being.

2. THE WORLD VIEW OF THE HINDU TRADITIONS:

The world view of the Hindu Traditions is built on the fundamental

metaphor of 'wholeness-and-organic-interconnectedness11 . Whether it be

the myths or the metaphors or the various philosophical schools that we

come across in these Traditions we shall discover that wholeness-and-

organic-interconnectedness is the background metaphor. Indeed without it

the whole complex of Hindu myths and metaphors has no coherence. And

should we want to enter this complex the dominant metaphor will act as the

11 . The Purusha-sukta (Rigveda X 90) is the first coherent articulation of the "organic Whole". It is clear here how the visible and the invisible, the mortal and the immortal, Gods, Man and the whole of creation form an organic whole in the Purusha. It is in this organic Whole that the metaphor (1) of the four castes is verbalized. The four functions (mouth, arms, thighs and feet) that are the characteristics of the four castes are functions of the Karmendriyani and there is no higher or lower involved here The aim of the metaphor is to evoke the experience of harmonious and organic interdependence and interconnection. not of a hierarchy, as is clear in the hymn (RV X 90). That the metaphor was reifield and interpreted literally is a fact of history and its probable causes were more economic than religious. It is equally probable that sanction was sought for this literal interpretation more in religion than in economics. See my Caste: Symbol or System. NEGATIONS 1.1. (1982 Madras) PP. 17-28.

map on which the place and position of the individual myths, and metaphors

is to be located.

Wholeness connotes that the whole of reality whatever its dimension

and whatever its level is one. And organic interconnectedness means that

there is interconnection between all the [76]--- things in the universe12 and

that this is of an organic, not of a mechanical, nature13 . Where there is

mechanical unity, the different parts are interconnected 'externally' and so

when one part is out of order, what happens is that the external connection

becomes disconnected but the various parts remain unaffected as regards

their own nature. But this is not so in the case of organic unity; the inter-

connectedness is 'internal' so that when one part does not function as it

should the whole organism is affected. Indeed the unity is such that when

we speak of individual parts we are in fact speaking of abstractions.14 For

what we call the eye is an abstraction, since in reality it is the whole of the

person that is involved in the seeing through the eye. The eye is not like a

screw secure in its monodic existence. The screw unlike the eye can exist

alone, without reference to the nut and the bolt! Not so the eye. What we

call an eye is the whole body in as much as it does the function of seeing!

So too with the other parts of an organic whole. There is no part whatever

that can exist and function independently of the whole organism. 12 . The basic metaphor of the Whole as a Purusha is the reason for the organic interconnectedness. 13 . The cosmos even in today's understanding is a Cosmos, that is, an orderly and totally interconnected Whole. Perhaps in the strictest sense of the word there is no such thing as a mechanical unity at all, just as in the strictest sense there is no immoveable mountain, since everything in the universe is in motion. 14 . Pragmatic reasons lead us to speak of parts of the whole As if they were independent parts. In course of time we come to believe that they are independent parts, forgetting that it is a way of speaking.

Understanding any part is somehow always understanding the whole body

and understanding the whole body is somehow understanding the parts.

Now, all the genuine myths and metaphors of the Hindu Traditions mediate

an experience of the whole cosmic body either directly or indirectly15 .

The consequences of such a world view are important and far-

reaching. On such an account there cannot be any meaningful dichotomy

between God and World, the sacred and the profane, Man and Nature, time

and eternity, spirit and matter, body and soul, earth and heaven, etc..... 16

Even 'God' will mean differently here as is evidenced by such an orthodox

but thoroughly 'a-theistic' school like the Purva-Mimamsa17 . Accordingly in

this world view to mention a part is to mention the whole with its parts. To

say 'Man' is to refer to the whole World also. This is an important point

about this world view. If this is not grasped charges like Pantheism, Monism,

etc. will easily be bandied about. The unity that obtains in an organism, we

said, is of a different nature from that which obtains in a mechanism. In the 15 . The fundamental metaphor of the Hindu Traditions, I submit, is that of the cosmic Purusha and all the myths that belong-genuinely-to these Traditions will be of a piece with the fundamental metaphor. Hence when they evoke it will always be evocation in the direction of the cosmic Purusha. 16 . See Panikkar's MYTH, FAITH AND HERMENEUTICS PASSIM, esp. p. 6. "A symbol is the symbol of that which is precisely (symbolized) in the symbol, and which, thus does not exist without its symbol. A symbol is nothing but the symbol of that which appears in and as the symbol. Yet we must beware of identifying the symbol with the symbolized. To overlook the Symbolic Difference, i.e, to mistake the symbol for the symbolized, is precisely AVIDYA, ignorance, confusing the appearance with the reality. But reality is reality precisely because it 'appears' real." And p.7: "The symbol is neither a merely objective entity in the world (the thing 'over there'). nor is it a purely subjective entity in the mind (in us 'over here'). There is no symbol that is not in and for a subject, and there is equally no symbol without a specific content claiming objectivity. The symbol encompasses and constitutively links the two poles of the real: the object and the subject." Hence to make the dichotomies of subject and object, of matter and mind may be grounded in pragmatic circumstances but the practice is un-acceptable as a premise in a precise argument. 17 . See my SABDAPRAMANYAM IN SABARA AND KUMARILA.

latter the unity is monotonously uniform while in the former it is a dynamic

unity of dependence and independence resulting in interdependence.18

Furthermore the [77]--- whole is not just a sum of the parts as in the case

of mechanical unity. While it is true that there is no whole without the parts

and no parts without the whole, the whole itself is more than the parts, and

is something irreducible and ultimate. Because of its irreducibility and

ultimate nature, it happens often in this world-view that this aspect is taken

for granted. The reason for this is that it is always there whether the talk is

about this part, that part or any part. Indeed there is no part where this

aspect (of irreducibility and ultimateness) is absent. But it is not true the

other way round. The whole remains in spite of the absence of one or more

parts; and the aspect of wholeness accompanies the existence and function

of every part. For in every part it is the whole that is at work. The root of

the parts is in the whole. Hence to work towards making the part wholesome

is to work for the whole. Indeed one can work for the whole only by working

for the part or parts. But one has to be cautious here. What is apparently

good for the part may in reality be harmful for the whole and what is good

for the whole might appear harmful to the parts. Real good is always to be

understood from the viewpoint of the whole. Of course the whole we are

throughout speaking of is not a limited whole, like the whole body of one

Man; we are speaking of the Ultimate Whole of which the cosmos is a part.

Only to such a Whole can one attribute fullness-and-interconnectedness in

the most genuine sense of the word.

18 . Interdependence presupposes both dependence and independence. Indeed both dependence and independence are intelligible ultimately in an ultimate inter-dependence; the alternative to this would be monadic existences.

In the earliest formulation of the myth of 'wholeness-and-organic-

interconnectedness' it was spoken of as a purusha, a person19 . Later on the

myth of the cosmic sacrifice (yajna) took its place during the Brahmana

period20 but when the mystical view of the sacrifice came into vogue during

the Upanisadic age it came to be called sarvam, atma, brahman and purusha

too,21 all these becoming synonymous in the course of time22 . With purusha

the advantage was that the unity of the cosmos was suggested to be

organic and personalistic but the disadvantage was that the personalistic

aspect tended to give the impression of anthropomorphism. The advantage

of sarvam was that it obviously was holistic and all-embracing but the

disadvantage was that it 'sounded' impersonal and inorganic. The Gita tried

to eliminate all the disadvantages of both and to bring [78]---together all

the advantages by changing the sarvam into the masculine sarvah23 . It puts

this into practice as it were in Chapter XI where it portrays the all

encompassing reality as the body of Krishna again as in the Purusha-sukta

(Rg. X. 90).24 Repeatedly it states there that all the worlds are contained in

the body of Krishna.25 And in Chapter XIII (12-17) the Gita speaks somewhat

in detail of the body of the All-encom-passing. The point of the body-

metaphor is that the whole of the universe is the body of the Lord, an

organic body, not a conglomeration of things put and held together. The

body-metaphor as it occurs explicitly articulated first in the Purusha-sukta 19 . Rigveda X 90. 20 . The Purusha-sukta itself contains the idea of Sacrifice which surface in different versions later on. E.g. Brihad-aranyaka Up. 1.1.1. Chandogya Up. III. 16.1 and Bhagavadgita 8.4cd. 21 . E.g. Brih. Up. IV. 4. 23-25; Chand, Up. Vi. 11.3; Shvetashvatara Up.III. 11ff. 22 . E.g. Shvet. Up. III and VI. 23 . See my Zur Eigenart des Bhagavadgita-Theismus in a volume of the Questioners Disputate Series of Herder edited by W. Strolz and S. Ueda, 1982. 24 . Clearly Ch XI of the Gita is a continuation of the Purusha-sukta (Rv X 90)x in this regard. 25 . Gita M. 7. 13. 15.

(Rgveda 10,90) is to be met with time and again in the scriptures. The

Sukta begins thus.26

A Thousand heads had [primal] Man (purusha)

A thousand eyes, a thousand feet:

Encompassing the earth on every side,

He exceeded it by ten fingers [breadth]. 1.

[That] Man is this whole universe,

What was and what is yet to be,

The Lord of immortality

Which he outgrows by [eating] food. 2.

These very verses the Shvetashvatara Upanishad takes up (3.14,15)

and adds the following:

With hands and feet on every side,

On every side eyes, heads and mouths,

With ears on every side He stands,

All things encompassing that the world contains.3.16

All attributes of sense doth he light up,

26 . HINDU SCRIPTURES translated and edited by R. C. Zaehner, London 1972. PP. 8-9.

[Himself] devoid of all [attributes of] sense. 3.17 ab

Now, it is these verses from the Shvetashvatara Upanishad that the

Gita quotes in Ch. 13.13,14ab. The implications are simple. By quoting from

a definite context the Gita is killing two birds with one stone. One, it is

taking us back to the Purusha-sukta to remind us that it stands in a certain

tradition which it is bent or reviving and to which it had referred earlier

(11.10,16,19, 23). Two, the verses from the Shvetashvatara Upanishad

explicitate [79]--- something which it needs in the context of its own

problematic27 namely, the aspect of the organic unity of the different

functions of the mouth, feet and hands. Besides showing in Ch. 11 that

everything is under the control of the Lord in his form as kala (Time), the

aspect of the organic unity of the whole universe is repeatedly stressed.28

Though the Gita express is verb is speaks of the Whole, the Ultimate

Whole, it is obvious to anyone who reads the Gita carefully that this Whole is

not a life-less, undifferentiated Whole. Indeed the Gita speaks of it so often

in such a variety of ways that the charge has been levelled against it that its

manner of treating its subject-matter is inconsistent, incoherent and even

contradictory29 . See for instance in how many ways it speaks of Brahman, or

Prakriti, of Purusha, of the Ultimate, etc.30 The Gita is not a systematic

27 . Ibid P.209. 28 . See my The Pedagogy of the Bhagavad-Gita, GEETA-DARSHAN, (Sir Parashuram-bhau College) Pune 1977-78. Pp. 39-59. 29 . For example see R. Garbe, DIE BHAGAVADGITA. (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt) 1978. P. 22, 26. 30 . The Gita speaks e.g. of Prakriti, of the higher and the lower Prakriti; of Purusha, the highest Purusha, Purushottama; of Brahman, Mahadbrahman etc.

treatise; it is a mystical poem which does not make use of 'technical terms'.

Because this has been overlooked, it has been interpreted as speaking of

Purusha and Prakriti as if there could be Purusha without Prakriti without

Purusha.31 When Purusha is spoken of, what is meant is the Whole from the

viewpoint of the 'Spirit' as it were. When Prakriti is spoken of, what is meant

is the Whole from the viewpoint of 'Matter' as it were. 'Body' and 'Soul' are

mere abstractions, for when we say Body, we mean in fact the embodied

Soul and when we say Soul we mean the spiritualised Body. Body as such

and Soul as such do not exist just as Spirit and Matter as such do not exist.

What exists is always the Whole.

Unfortunately the 'abstractions' Body' and 'Soul', 'Matter' and 'Spirit'

come to be understood literally and thus a dichotomy is introduced. With

that we give up the wholeness of reality, with such consequences as the

practice of an asceticism that despises the Body and cultivates the Soul,

anathemizes Matter and glorifies the Spirit. We then become 'mortified',

other-wordly and 'spiritual'! Religion turns out to be a matter of Morals

(especially Sex Morals), and Politics are handed over to scoundrels. and

eating and drinking are considered merely 'bodily' needs which have nothing

to do with the Kingdom of God. Joy and happiness have accordingly no

place in Religion; and so we look forward to a heaven that is to come! And

when [80]---we pray 'your Kingdom come' we mean of course 'take us away

from this vale of tears and transport us to your Kingdom-after death of

course!' Disease, i.e. die-ease, not-at-ease, not at home, is the outcome of

31 . One can speak of Prakriti and imply Purusha (Just as one can speak of the body and imply the soul) or can speak of Prakriti and mean only Prakriti, excluding Purusha. Literal dualistic interpretation of Prakriti and Purusha implies reification of Symbol-language.

Man running away from his body to find his Soul. This disease, like any

disease, cannot be cured by tackling the symptoms. One has to tackle the

root-cause and that is the lack of integration and of a holistic vision.

3. HUMAN BONDAGE

The dominant theme of the Hindu world view is wholeness. Around

this are centered its understanding of both bondage and liberation.

Becoming aware of this wholeness and acting upon it is the path to

liberation; conversely, being ignorant of the holistic aspect of all reality is

bondage. This may sound innocuous but its ramifications in our lives are well

nigh infinite. For more pragmatic reasons we can classify these ramifications

under three convenient headings: bondage pervades our attitudes, our

affectivity and our actions.32 This is by no means either an exhaustive or an

exclusive division. Accordingly it should not be interpreted that attitudes are

independent of affectivity or that affectivity and actions have nothing to do

with one another. On the contrary. Attitudes are permeated by emotions

and actions flow from attitudes and are rarely, if ever, free from emotions.

What can possibly justify our classification is that these three are easy

accesses to human reality: they show Man from three complementary, not

contradictory, points of view.

32 . In point of fact, attitudes, affectivity and actions are abstractions. We have no attitudes that exclude emotion and action, no action without attitude and emotion and so on. This is merely pragmatical, pedagogical classification.

All our attitudes share in a common basic attitude: that of seeing the

body but overlooking the soul as it were; or to put in another way, of

treating the body as if it were everything and of totally (or partially)

neglecting the soul. To put this in (Hindu) metaphysical language, all our

stress is on the world of the Prakriti (= change-and-becoming), not on the

world of the Purusha (=being-and-awareness). Our values stem from the

world of transience, not from the world of timelessness. We experience time

but not eternity.33 The reason for this is that Prakriti is the body of Purusha

and Purusha is the very Soul of Prakriti. Or at least, this is how we should

look at both Purusha and Prakriti. What in fact we do is this: we absolutize

the body, the Prakriti, and take our values from there, neglecting or over-

looking the values of the Purusha. If however the values of Prakriti are to be

real values, not pseudo-values, then they have to be seen from the

perspective of the Purusha since it is the Purusha who is the source of the

Prakriti.

All this might appear speculative and theoretical and someone might

even add, academic. That it is not so can be judged from the following.

All our living and our loving is usually based on two urges, namely likes

and dislikes; we do what we like and avoid what we dislike. Likes and dislikes

are prakritic attraction and repulsion. In themselves they are neither good

nor bad. However we are condemned not because we have likes and dislikes,

33 . See Panikkar's Time and Sacrifice-the Sacrifice of Time and the Ritual of Modernity. THE STUDY OF TIME III. Proceedings of the Third Conference of the International Society for the Study of Time. Alpbach-Austria. Ed. by j. t. Fraser, N. Lawrence, D. Park. (New York, Heidelberg, Berlin). Pp.683-725.

but because we act according to their dictates. There, is hardly any area of

life where these two 'brigands on the road (paripanthinau-Bhagavadgita

3.34d) are not lurking and unfortunately we allow ourselves to be

ambushed. All our actions, emotions and attitudes are tainted by likes and

dislikes with the result that we turn a deaf ear to the voice of the Purusha

and become almost blind to his existence. The consequence of this is that

we are bound to 'Matter', we behave as if we were matter and nothing else

and we believe that we are matter. Our vision and our values become

through and through 'materialistic', hence one-sided, not holistic. This is

bondage.

It is only on the backdrop of such a materialistic understanding and

self-understanding that the metaphor of punar-janma (re-birth) becomes

significant. What has today become the doctrine of Karma and Rebirth was

(and could only have been) a metaphor born out of a religious experience.

The 'physics' of this metaphor consists in the principle that every action has

a cause and an effect. This is a fact of the world of matter! Now matter is

energy. Energy which has, among others, two basic 'laws' one of attraction

and the other of repulsion, cannot be destroyed, it merely changes its form.

Anything and anyone who behaves like energy according to these two laws

of attraction and repulsion is 'doomed' to share in energy's fate, namely, of

changing from one form to another, of going from one 'birth, to another;

what is 'Man' today will become 'dust' tomorrow! [82]--- Any Man who acts

like energy merely according to what attracts him (= likes) and what repels

him (dislikes) will share in energy's fate of being bound to the endless

rounds of birth and rebirth. There is no way out for such a Man; he is

condemned to the world of matter, that is, so long he behaves like matter.

Now this is the metaphor of rebirth. It is not concerned with giving us

information about our future births. It is concerned about shaking us out of

our meterialistic self understanding. If we act like matter, there is no

liberation for us, we are bound endlessly. If however we realize that we are

more than matter, that there is in us a higher principle of awareness and

consciousness according to which we have to act, then we shall be liberated.

Our end will not be matter; matter will then be the means to the Spirit. With

that we shall have crossed over to the other shore and shall then view

everything and everyone holistically. Our one - sidedness will have

disappeared.

What is usually not understood (even by the Hindus themselves) is

that bondage is not the state of an 'Individual'. It is not as if bondage were a

matter of the Individual alone, with the rest of the world remaining aloof and

unaffected. Bondage is a metaphor of the Hindu world view and as such part

of the larger metaphor of Prakriti. Accordingly it can be meaningful only in

the context of the organic unity of Prakriti where what happens to one part

is of consequence to all the other parts. Bondage is both relative and

relational. Relative because it admits of more and less. A person may be

liberated from one point of view but may still be bound from another point

of view. Relational because the bondage of one affects the other. That

means to say, bondage and liberation are processes that one goes through,

not points that are definitively reached once and for all! Because of the

relative and relational character of bondage we exude bondage. For there is

bondage in the children we rear and the people we use, in the charity we

practise and the justice we neglect, in the development we plan and in the

deserts we produce, in the houses we build and in the homes we destroy, in

the trees we grow and in the forests we desolate, in the animals we tame

and in those we eliminate, in the cars that damage our nerves and pollute

our cities, in the [83]--- bombs that threaten not only the enemy but the

future of Man. In the world view of the Hindu Traditions the metaphor of

bondage is significant only if it is interpreted 'structurally', not

subjectivistically and solipsistically!.

Commentators and much more the Readers of the Gita and the

Samkhya overlook the simple fact that there is such a thing as the cosmic

Ahamkara. The Gita, for example, speaks thus:

Thus [is] my Prakriti (=Nature) eightfold categorized:

earth, water, fire, wind, space, Manas, Buddhi and also

Ahamkara. This [is My] lower [Prakriti]. But Mahabaho,

my higher know Prakriti, different from this....7.4-5ab.

The Lord here is speaking of the cosmic Prakriti as is evident from the

cosmic context of the elements as well as from the fact that the Lord is

speaking about his own Prakriti Cosmic Ahamkara is a de facto component

of the cosmic Prakriti. Each of the Yogas attacks the cosmic Ahamkara from

its own specific viewpoint. Karmayoga concentrates on the Senses and their

activity, Bhaktiyoga on the Manas and the emotions and Jnanayoga on the

Buddhi and its attitudes.

4. LIBERATION AS DELIGHT IN THE WELFARE OF ALL BEINGS

If bondage is to be interpreted meaningfully then it must be

interpreted within the world view in which it is experienced and articulated,

not 'extra-preted' (Panikkar!)34 in another world view. The same applies to

liberation (moksha). If bondage is the state where the part is taken for the

whole and absolutized, then liberation is the state where the part is taken as

a part of the Whole, where the part is meaningful only in and through the

Whole. Hence the path to liberation is the one that leads to the welfare of all

beings.35 This is obvious and needs no labouring since in a healthy organic

unity the total organism works towards the welfare of the whole organism.

In the Hindu Traditions liberation can never mean the liberation of Man alone,

since this is an absurdity. There is no such being as Man alone;to understand

the Nature of Man we need to understand the [84]--- Nature of the air, the

waters, the earth, the sun, the rain, the trees, the animals, the germs, the

atoms and the cells, etc. There can be no liberation for Man as long as the

whole of Nature remains bound and unliberated. (BhG. 7.4.11).36

34 . See fn 16. 35 . I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance of the holistic, structural aspect of this kind of Goal in liberation : the welfare of all beings. If taken seriously liturgy, professional life, politics, economics, etc. would all become interconnected through an inner link. Our present understanding of liberation is so limited, individualistic and one-sided that it does not permeate our professional life, politics, etc. 36 . Our understanding of Man has to be cosmotheandric. "By cosmotheandric or 'theanthro-pocosmic' intuition I understand that vision of reality which sees the divine, the human, and the cosmic as the three ultimate factors present in whatever there is." Panikkar, The Study of Time III. Fn 62.p 722 However strange this may appear to the modern (Western thought-patterned) Christian the view of the New Testament on the matter seems to be similar. Resurrection implies not only a new heaven but a new Earth and a new Jerusalem. Moreover, the Good News is to be preached to the Whole Creation (Mk 15 15, 17-18). The

If liberation is to be holistic, the approaches to liberation have

necessarily also to be holistic. But then there can be no single path which is

so holistic that it does not neglect one or the other aspect. That is why in

the Gita no single Yoga is absolutized or exclusive. All are indispensable

because they are complementary. All aim at the same goal but their

approaches are different.37 Tradition has grouped them in three major Yogas,

though it is quite clear that the Gita speaks of more than three Yogas.

Basically of course there is only one complex Yoga with one integral aim but

this one aim is achieved by a combination of different Yogas, since no one

Yoga is in a position to lead to total liberation. Now, Bondage envelops the

whole person because the whole person is dominated by the ahamkara, the

pseudo-1 (=the totality of likes and dislikes) which has usurped the place

and position of the real-1, the atma. But the ahamkara manifests itself

predominantly in three major areas: action, affectivity and attitude. Each of

these areas is treated by a special Yoga-as pect : Karma, Bhakti and Jnana.

Karmayoga is the Yoga of unconditional, selfless service. It implies

that every action is to be done with a view to the welfare of the Whole.

Immediate gain may never be the ultimate motive of action. There are two

aspects to this. First: when it is clear that a certain action leads to the

welfare of the Whole that action is to be done, irrespective of the

consequences. Second: when such clarity is lacking, one should keep in mind

Book of Revelation gives ultimate hope by proclaiming that All Things will be made new,(21.5). 37 . Though holistic in their approach, Karmayoga concentrates on the Senses, Bhaktiyoga on the Manas and Jnanayoga on the Buddhi.

the search for the welfare of the Whole, since no other motive should inspire

our action and involvement. Karmayoga destroys all pettiness and self-

seeking, even actions which 'individually' may be selfless but 'structurally'

are basically selfish (as in the case of Arjuna who personally had nothing to

gain by refusing to fight. But his concern was not the justice or the injustice

involved in the issue but the survival or non-survival of his clan which he

considered to be the cornerstone of the Kshatriya-caste which in turn was

for him the backbone of the whole caste-system).38 [85]-- Actions have to

be selfless from the viewpoint of the structure, not merely from that of the

lone individual. Any partial point of view will of necessity smack of partiality!

To counteract this, Karmayoga places before us the ideal of the welfare of

the Whole. It is a Yoga of selfless, unconditional service because working for

the welfare of the Whole will often entail doing things whose results we shall

not be in a position to see, of sowing where we shall surely not reap. It is

selfless because no personal gain is sought and it is unconditional because

there is no condition except the welfare of the Whole. The welfare of the

Whole, be it noted, refers not merely to all Men but to all beings without

exception. This is important today because of its relevance to the

problematic of ecology. It is dawning upon usalbeit gradually-that Man will

not survive, much less prosper, if his environment does not survive and

prosper.

By promoting the welfare of the Whole, (and not by any agere contra

behaviour) the practice of Karmayoga, undermines not merely the individual

38 . See my Caste: Symbol or System, NEGATIONS 1.1. (1982).

Ahamkara but also the cosmic Ahamkara.39 For..... the ahamkaric effects in

our Cosmos are clearly discernible from human misery to destruction of flora

and fauna and to air-contamination. The ultimate root-cause of all this, the

Gita says, is to be located in desire and dislike. And if it is admitted that

every Karma has of its nature a cosmic effect, then it should not be too

difficult to concede that every ahamkaric Karma too 'pollutes' the Cosmos

by disseminating the Ahamkara. Because Man's activity has a cosmic

dimension, his selfishness is not limited to his being or to that of his

immediate surroundings but pervades the Cosmos as such. This pervasion is

manifested in ahamkaric value-systems that are incarnated in our

socioeconomic patterns and practices. Indeed it is here that one begins to

see how insidious and infinitely ramified our bondage is which no amount of

private Perfection can hear. The effects of the Ahamkara are cosmic and the

remedy, if it is to be relevant, has to be of the same order.40

Bhaktiyoga, the Yoga of Communion, functions through the help of

the Manas, that is, mind-memory-and-imagination Concomitant with these

are the emotions. As mind-memory-and-imagination aim at discovering the

Lord in all things and [86]--all things in the Lord (6.30), the concomitant

emotions get purified. Emotions have to follow, not dictate, our decisions.

By making the mind see the Lord in all things (this is the real purpose of the

Vibhutiyoga verses in Chs 7,9 and 10) with the help of the memory and the

imagination Bhaktiyoga produces holistic reasoning and emotions. The

reasoning becomes holistic because the world is considered as the Body of 39 . Again, the individual Ahamkara is a mere abstraction. What we in fact have is Ahamkara permeating everything of life and world. 40. F.X. D'Sa, Dharma as Delight in Cosmic Welfare: A study of Dharma in the Gita, BIBLEBHASHYAM, December (1980). Pp.340-341.

the Lord, not as a conglomeration of objects. This helps root out

possessiveness and in its place pure love is born. Love cannot exist side by

side with lust or with possessiveness. The two are mutually exclusive.

Possessiveness takes away one's freedom by making one attached to the

things of this world but love makes free because it is born of communion.

Bhakti means communion, to be part of, to participate. This idea is best

expressed by the following verse of the Gita :

Who sees me everywhere and sees the All in me, for him

I am not lost nor is he lost to me. 6.30

In communion both the lover and the beloved retain their identity (in

spite of their union); this is possible because communion consists in the

mutual acceptance of the other as other. As I have shown elsewhere,41 in

the Gita view of God and Man, there is only one absolute AHAM and that is

the Lord. The rest of us function as Ahamkaras, not as Aham. Our real

nature however consists not so much in an Aham as in a 'Thou' that is

uncondition-ally loved and accepted. Our 'I' is in fact the awareness of being

totally accepted by the absolute Aham. Without this absolute Aham our

Self-awareness would be as good as non-existent. Our tragedy is that we

seldom if ever attain the fullness of such Self-awareness; we prefer to

function at the level of the Ahamkara. Bhakti starts with this awareness :

41. I have dealt with this problem in my Zur Eigenart des Bhagavadgita- Theismus.

This same ancient Yoga is being proclaimed to you by me

today; because this is the supreme secret that you are

beloved of me and my friend. 4.342

The Self-awareness that one is being accepted absolutely is to be

discovered in and through everything because in and through everything the

Lord is showing his acceptance of the [87]--- Bhakta. Communion with the

Lord therefore is to be striven after in and through everything.

The hindrances to such communion are two : one, we are blinded by

our own likes and dislikes to such an extent that we are unable to perceive

the Lord's presence everywhere; and two, the presence of the Lord is not

perceptible because the things around us have become opaque; they have

been so disfigured by our selfishness that air is really no more air, instead of

bread we have stones and instead of fish we are eating snakes ! Bhaktiyoga

has accordingly to be practised in a holistic manner. Our Bhakti has to be

such that we hunger to breathe in the pure air and thus commune with the

Lord; that we long to smell the freshness of the earth and thus commune

with the Lord; that we long to smell the freshness of the earth and thus

commune with the Lord; that we delight in the brilliance of fire and thus

commune with the Lord. (This is as a matter of fact the essence of the

Vibhutiyoga of Chs 7, 9 and 10). Bhakti means not only smiling with the

flowers and rejoicing with those in love but giving preference to the blind

and the lame and having a soft corner for the dull and the difficult. Bhakti 42 . In JEEVADHARA. A Journal of Christian Interpretation, I have given an exegesis of BhG4.3 in The Prophetic Element in the Bhagavadgita. Jeevadhara 21 (1974) Pp.218-229.

means not only delight in house-animals but a strong conviction that wild

animals too have their place and purpose on this earth. Bhakti means looking

at men and women not as objects of lust but as subjects of love. Bhakti

means considering the things of this earth not as occasions of pleasure or

profit but as signs of God's concern for everyone and everything. It is Bhakti

that makes every grain of sand proclaim God's presence. It is Bhakti that

discloses how God's heart beats in every babe and how his freshness blooms

in every branch. It is Bhakti that makes us aware of how He caresses us

through his wind, refreshes us through his air, washes us with his rains and

nourishes us with his rivers, how he decorates us with his forests and his

flowers and sings to us through his birds and enlightens us with his sun,

moon and stars.

Like Karmayoga Bhaktiyoga too has to be cosmic and not limited to

clique, clan or caste. Bhakti may begin at home but it cannot end there,

except of course when the whole universe becomes one's home. For it is

Bhakti that turns a house into a [88]-- home and brings down heaven on

earth. Bhakti can never be a point, unconnected and unconnecting; it is a

process that purifies and enlightens all that comes in touch with it. Like a

forest fire, it grows in leaps and bounds, setting afire the whole surround-

ings. For Bhakti is not satisfied when only one's own children are loved and

cared for but strives to create conditions where all children can be loved and

cared for; Bhakti can never be satisfied merely when one's daughters and

womenfolk begin to discover the freedom of the children of God but works

towards building up a world where women can move about freely and enjoy

equal rights with men. Bhakti is not so much pitying beggars and giving alms

as constructing a just society where there are no beggars. This is so

because Bhakti is concerned not with likes and dislikes but with communing

with the Lord present in flesh, flower and fruit. This is the meaning of

liberation, holistic liberation from the viewpoint of Bhakti.

Quite different from these two Yogas is jnanayoga which is to be

practised at two levels.43 The first is the preparatory stage where one

reasons out things and shows how reality and experience are a complex of

Being and becoming, that Being is perceived in and through Becoming, but

that we get so used to living on the surface, i.e. on the level of Being that

we come to believe that, that is all that we experience of Being. Because of

such a belief we cultivate the values (in reality pseudo-values) of likes and

dislikes which are nothing more than attraction and repulsion of the level of

becoming-and-change. Likes and dislikes rule our lives and we become

strangers to the world of Being. The preparatory stage which makes us

aware of this process is called Samkhyayoga by the Gita (2.11-39a).

Basically it is a reason-method44 that explores the levels of reality and the

reality of the levels. The method points out to the path which can take us to

the home that is 'awareness'.

Once we feel convinced of what our reason points out to then we can

begin with the second stage of Jnanayoga. This consists in awareness of

change-and-becoming on the one hand and of non-change-and-Being on the 43 . I have argued in my Jnana as Experience of Transcendence in the Bhagavadgita, EPIPHANIE DES HEILS hrsg. von G. Oberhammer (Vienna 1982), that Jnanayoga consists of Samkhyayoga and Buddhiyoga. 44 . See Franklin Edgerton, Jnana and Vijnana FESTSCHRIFT M. WINTERNITZ, (Leipzig, 1933). Pp. 217-220.

other. Awareness is not 'knowing about'; it is knowing. Only knowing takes

us to a direct experience of Change and Being; knowing about is conceptual

knowledge.

[89]--- Direct knowing being an experiential act is transformative

whereas knowing about is merely informative. Our behaviour is mostly

determined by our concepts and prejudices about reality, not by our

awareness of reality.

Concepts divide and conquer. The process of conceptualization is a

dualistic, that is, a subject - object process. But the background of this

process, namely, the awareness through which the subject-object process

takes place is a unifying process. It is through this that the subject-object

process comes to be at all. However, we neglect it and concentrate on the

foreground and take it to be the be-all and end-all of our knowing. The

consequence is, we get a lop-sided view of reality. We do not experience

reality in its fullness. To put it in Christian terms: we look at Jesus but do

not see the Father. jnanayoga corrects this by teaching us how to look at

Jesus so that seeing him we can at the same time see the Father! Jesus

himself could look at the birds of the air and the lilies of the field and cry out

'abba, Father!' This is because he was aware of the dimension of Being

through that of change-and-becoming and because the things of the world

displayed their mystery to him.

Jnanayoga produces a holistic vision of things as they are in their

totality. The complete level of becoming-and-change becomes transparent

in order to manifest the level of Being-and-Non-change. Being and Becoming

are not two things; they are two aspects of one reality. Jnanayoga makes it

possible that we see everywhere and in everything Being-and-Becoming in a

unitary, not a uniform, fashion. From this point onwards one's values derive

from the whole of reality, not merely from the level of Becoming. One will no

more be "deluded' (=mudha) by likes and dislikes. Recognizing the existence

of these 'dualities' (dvandva), one goes beyond them to the holistic vision

of reality to get one's norm of action and commitment. With that we come

back to the total, 'structural' aspect of reality. Jnanayoga, like Bhaktiyoga

and Karmayoga, cannot be partial. It may not be adequate but it is holistic

and far from other-worldly, as it might appear the way it is sometimes

interpreted. This Yoga concentrates on the Buddhi (=will-and-understanding)

and works towards removing all traces of the Ahamkara. The Buddhi is [90]-

affected by the Ahamkara; not experiencing the dimension of Being, it rests

content with that of Becoming. Experiencing the dimension of Becoming, it

takes its values from it. Thus it turns one-sided where understanding-and-

will are concerned. But Jnanayoga removes the blinds from the Buddhi and

frees it in such a manner that understanding-and-will become holistic in their

functioning. Once the Buddhi is recreated, new and fresh attitudes emerge

which are holistic and wholesome.

When the Senses, the mind-memory-and-imagination (manas) and

understanding-and-will (buddhi) are thus purified and made holistic our

actions, our affectivity and all our attitudes become holistic. Working for the

welfare of all beings becomes the goal and content of Ultimate Liberation.

The rewarding experience that results from such a task is the process itself.

In our existing state of bondage it is difficult to imagine that a process can

be its own reward. This is because we are open to the type of rewards that

belong to the realm of likes and dislikes. The practice of the Yogas opens us

up systematically so that gradually the joy that flows from such practice

begins to make itself felt. The Gita has coined an extraordinary phrase in this

regard. It says of the highest Yogis who are adept in the practice of all the

Yogas that they are 'in ecstasy with regard to the welfare of all beings'

(sarvabhutahite ratah). A ratah is one who is in sexual ecstasy. Now it is said

of the highest Yogis who have crossed over to the other shore and are far

from all sexual desire that they are in ecstasy with regard to the welfare of

all beings. These Yogis delight in working for the welfare of all beings.

CONCLUSION

This is the kind of liberation the Tradition of the Bhagavadgita has to

offer. It is as relevant as it is necessary for today's world. It is all-embracing,

not leaving out the 'dumb' side of creation. It may not be anthropocentric;

but this need not be a disadvantage as long as the vision is holistic. The

type of Dharma that is sketched above goes much beyond the traditional

jatidharmas and kuladharmas which divide and dissipate. The Moksha-dharma

that is being proclaimed in the Gita is open to all. It is neither a reductionism

to a lifeless uniformity nor it is a chaotic tolerance that is born of a

helplessness to unite. Dharma as liberation is confined not merely to rite and

ritual; it extends to righteousness as well. Liberation is of not merely the

whole Man but of the whole creation as well. In this process what is

promised is not a distant Utopia, an other-worldly paradise, a heaven after

death. The realism of the vision is matched only by the rapture it promises.

Those who are equanimous in spite of deprivation and death-only such will

strive for the welfare of all beings. It is to these alone that exceeding delight

in their striving is promised. They alone are the real Jivanmuktas.