Editing Moksha (section)

=== Epistemological and psychological senses ===

Scholars provide various explanations of the meaning of ''moksha'' in epistemological and psychological senses. For example, Deutsche sees ''moksha'' as transcendental consciousness, the perfect state of being, of self-realization, of freedom and of "realizing the whole universe as the Self".<ref>E. Deutsch, The self in Advaita Vedanta, in Roy Perrett (Editor), Indian philosophy: metaphysics, Volume 3, {{ISBN|0-8153-3608-X}}, Taylor and Francis, pp 343–360</ref>

''Moksha'' in Hinduism, suggests [[Klaus Klostermaier]],<ref name=klausklost>Klaus Klostermaier, Mokṣa and Critical Theory, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 61–71</ref> implies a setting-free of hitherto fettered faculties, a removing of obstacles to an unrestricted life, permitting a person to be more truly a person in the full sense; the concept presumes an unused human potential of creativity, compassion and understanding which had been blocked and shut out. ''Moksha'' is more than liberation from a life-rebirth cycle of suffering (''samsara''); the Vedantic school separates this into two: ''jivanmukti'' (liberation in this life) and ''videhamukti'' (liberation after death).<ref>see:
* M. von Brück (1986), Imitation or Identification?, Indian Theological Studies, Vol. 23, Issue 2, pp 95–105
* Klaus Klostermaier, Mokṣa and Critical Theory, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 61–71</ref> ''Moksha'' in this life includes psychological liberation from ''adhyasa'' (fears besetting one's life) and ''avidya'' (ignorance or anything that is not true knowledge).<ref name=klausklost/>

==== As a state of perfection ====

[[File:Gajendra Moksha print.jpg|thumb|220px|[[Gajendra Moksha]] (pictured) is a symbolic tale in [[Vaishnavism]]. The elephant Gajendra enters a lake where a crocodile (Huhu) clutches his leg and becomes his suffering. Despite his pain, Gajendra constantly remembers Vishnu, who then liberates him. Gajendra symbolically represents human beings, Huhu represents sins, and the lake is saṃsāra.]]
Many schools of Hinduism according to [[Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Sr.|Daniel Ingalls]],<ref name=danielingalls/> see ''moksha'' as a state of perfection. The concept was seen as a natural goal beyond ''dharma''. ''Moksha'', in the epics and ancient literature of Hinduism, is seen as achievable by the same techniques necessary to practice ''dharma''. Self-discipline is the path to ''dharma'', ''moksha'' is self-discipline that is so perfect that it becomes unconscious, second nature. ''Dharma'' is thus a means to ''moksha''.<ref>see:
* Karl Potter, Dharma and Mokṣa from a Conversational Point of View, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1958), pp. 49–63
* Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Dharma and Moksha, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1957), pp. 41–48</ref>

The [[Samkhya]] school of Hinduism, for example, suggests that one of the paths to ''moksha'' is to magnify one's ''[[sattva]]m''.<ref>One of three qualities or habits of an individual; sattvam represents spiritual purity; sattvic people, claims Samkhya school, are those who see world's welfare as a spiritual principle. See cited Ingalls reference.</ref><ref name=dhhi45>Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Dharma and Moksha, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1957), pp. 45–46</ref> To magnify one's ''sattvam'', one must develop oneself where one's ''sattvam'' becomes one's instinctive nature. Many schools of Hinduism thus understood ''dharma'' and ''moksha'' as two points of a single journey of life, a journey for which the ''[[viaticum]]'' was discipline and self-training.<ref name=dhhi45/> Over time, these ideas about ''moksha'' were challenged.

==== Nagarjuna's challenge ====

''Dharma'' and ''moksha'', suggested [[Nagarjuna]] in the 2nd century, cannot be goals on the same journey.<ref name=dhhi46>Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Dharma and Moksha, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1957), pp. 46</ref> He pointed to the differences between the world we live in, and the freedom implied in the concept of ''moksha''. They are so different that ''dharma'' and ''moksha'' could not be intellectually related. ''Dharma'' requires worldly thought, ''moksha'' is unworldly understanding, a state of bliss. "How can the worldly thought-process lead to unworldly understanding?", asked Nagarjuna.<ref name=dhhi46/> Karl Potter explains the answer to this challenge as one of context and framework, the emergence of broader general principles of understanding from thought processes that are limited in one framework.<ref>Karl Potter, Dharma and Mokṣa from a Conversational Point of View, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 8, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1958), pp. 49–63</ref>

==== Adi Shankara's challenge ====

[[Adi Shankara]] in the 8th century AD, like Nagarjuna earlier, examined the difference between the world one lives in and ''moksha'', a state of freedom and release one hopes for.<ref name=dhhi47>Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Dharma and Moksha, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1957), pp. 47</ref> Unlike Nagarjuna, Shankara considers the characteristics between the two. The world one lives in requires action as well as thought; our world, he suggests, is impossible without ''vyavahara'' (action and plurality). The world is interconnected, one object works on another, input is transformed into output, change is continuous and everywhere. ''Moksha'', suggests Shankara,<ref name=klausklost/> is a final perfect, blissful state where there can be no change, where there can be no plurality of states. It has to be a state of thought and consciousness that excludes action.<ref name=dhhi47/> He questioned: "How can action-oriented techniques by which we attain the first three goals of man (''kama'', ''artha'' and ''dharma'') be useful to attain the last goal, namely ''moksha''?"

Scholars<ref>see:
* Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Dharma and Moksha, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1957), pp 41–48
* R Sinari (1982), The concept of human estrangement in plotinism and Shankara Vedanta, in "Neoplatonism and Indian thought", Ed: R.B. Harris, Albany, NY, pp 243–255
* R.K. Tripathi (1982), Advaita Vedanta and Neoplatonism, in "Neoplatonism and Indian thought", Ed: R.B. Harris, Albany, NY, pp 237; also see pp 294–297 by Albert Wolters</ref> suggest Shankara's challenge to the concept of ''moksha'' parallels those of [[Plotinus]] against the [[Gnosticism|Gnostics]], with one important difference:<ref name=dhhi47/> Plotinus accused the Gnostics of exchanging an [[anthropocentrism|anthropocentric]] set of [[virtue]]s with a [[Theocentricism|theocentric]] set in pursuit of [[salvation]]; Shankara challenged that the concept of ''moksha'' implied an exchange of anthropocentric set of virtues (''dharma'') with a blissful state that has no need for values. Shankara goes on to suggest that anthropocentric virtues suffice.

==== The Vaisnavas' challenge ====

[[Vaishnavism]], one of the ''[[Bhakti yoga|bhakti]]'' schools of Hinduism, is devoted to the worship of God, sings his name, anoints his image or idol, and has many sub-schools. Vaishnavas (followers of Vaishnavism) suggest that ''dharma'' and ''moksha'' cannot be two different or sequential goals or states of life.<ref name=dhhi48>
Daniel H. H. Ingalls, "Dharma and Moksha", ''Philosophy East and West'', Vol. 7, No. 1/2 (Apr. – Jul., 1957), pp. 48
</ref>
Instead, they suggest God should be kept in mind constantly to simultaneously achieve ''dharma'' and ''moksha'', so constantly that one comes to feel one cannot live without God's loving presence. This school emphasized love and adoration of God as the path to "moksha" (salvation and release), rather than works and knowledge. Their focus became divine virtues, rather than anthropocentric virtues. [[Daniel H. H. Ingalls, Sr.|Daniel Ingalls]]<ref name=dhhi48/> regards Vaishnavas' position on ''moksha'' as similar to the Christian position on salvation, and Vaishnavism as the school whose views on ''dharma'', ''karma'' and ''moksha'' dominated the initial impressions and colonial-era literature on Hinduism, through the works of Thibaut, [[Max Müller]] and others.