The essence of this study on the meaning of the word “moksha” is that now, with some certainty, we can identify three distinct phases: vedic, vedantic and post vedantic — spanning over a millennium, during which the denotation and connotation of the word changed dramatically. Evolving from a humble and simple Sanskrit verbal root word “much” मुच् (meaning “riddance” or “freedom from”) the word “moksha” dramatically transformed into a sublime meaning connoting “salvation”. Surprisingly this semantic transformation does not show in the vedic and vedantic period because the Hindu sages and authors, constrained by the rigid rules of Sanskrit grammar, could only conceive of the most plausible meaning of the word “moksha” to be “mukti” because both “mukti” and “moksha”, they believed, etymologically evolved from the same verbal root “much” मुच् (meaning “riddance” or “freedom from”).
Go through all the 11 Upanishads that Shankaracharya has commented upon and you won’t find a single mention of the word “moksha” though the concept of moksha, as espoused in Upanishads and post-vedantic literature is mentioned quite often. To be blunt, I would say that our sages and Vedāntic authors undoubtedly possessed a sublime conception of salvation and understood the path by which that exalted state could be attained; yet they may not always have possessed a single, precise term to denote and connote it. Unfortunately, neither Yāska’s Nirukta nor the Nighaṇṭu appears to provide a clear and explicit definition of the noun mokṣa.
This reminds me of Austro-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951) who wrote in his Tractatus logico-philosophicus: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Wittgenstein’s argument was that language has a limit and that it can only picture hard facts and logical states of the world. Higher concepts like metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics etc. cannot be stated as factual propositions and hence ought to be passed over in silence.
Jaini Shadow: The emergence and spread of Jainism after 6th century BCE brought about a profound change in the Hindu ethos. Stress on non-violence (ahimsa), vegetarianism, cult of (श्रमण) śhramana etc. gradually became part of Hindu psyche.
Probably, between 2nd and 5th centuries CE when a Jaini, Acharya Umaswami, authored Tattvārtha Sūtra (तत्वार्थ सूत्र) and systematically elaborated the sublime concept of moksha, the thought was readily adopted by the contemporary authors, sages and dharmacharyas. The Jaini Sanskrit grammarians had given an absolutely new meaning to the word and, accordingly, prescribed their own etymology of the word. According to their interpretation the noun “moksha”, was a compound word, an amalgamation of two distinct words Moha (मोह) + kshaya (क्षय) literally meaning cessation of allurements.
The word Moha (मोह), according to Jain tradition, was derived from its Sanskrit verbal root muh (मुह्) meaning “delusion” or “yearning” (for something or somebody). Moha leads to craving, craving incites attachment and this very attachment is the root cause of all our sufferings. Similarly, word kshay (क्षय) is derived from its verbal root क्षि (kṣi) meaning “to decay, gradual death or to perish”. Thus, the composite meaning of मोह + क्षय would be ‘cessation of attachment/yearnings or delusion’. It is a state of mind in which a person, withdraws all mental attachment from the physical world, including kins, property, friends and foes and the current issues with which he is passionately involved. In such a situation all his deeds and relationships become impersonal and hence do not render him responsible for his karmas. His karmas, so to say, become neutral and benign. This is the state of “naishkarma siddhi” (नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धिम).
According to the Jain tradition, the root cause of all human distress lies in one’s karmas. When all karmas are completely neutralized or exhausted, one attains the state of kevalya (or kevalajñāna) – a condition in which you become one with your Self. This represents the highest state of spiritual and intellectual attainment in the Jain tradition.
मोहक्षयाज्ज्ञान-दर्शनावरणान्तराय-क्षयाच्च केवलम्॥ 1॥
Perfect bliss or “omniscience” (Kevalam) is attainable only by complete cessation/destruction of delusion caused by our karmas that cloud knowledge, cloud perception, and obstruct our soul’s sublime powers.
The available textual evidence suggests that, until around the beginning of the Common Era (CE), the term moksha had not yet acquired the prominence or the clearly defined technical sense of “salvation” or ultimate spiritual liberation that it would attain in later Vedāntic and Hindu philosophical traditions. Even Gaudapāda (c. 500–600 CE), in his Māndūkya Kārikā (Gaudapādīya Kārikā), does not use the word “moksha” in spite of the fact that the 85th verse of the 4th chapter, the Alātaśānti Prakaraṇa, explicitly describes a state that closely corresponds to what later Vedāntic traditions would characterise as mokṣa or ultimate liberation:
प्राप्य सर्वज्ञतां कृत्वा ब्राह्मण्यं पदमद्वयम् ।
अनापन्नादिमध्यान्तं किमतः परमीहते ॥
Having attained omniscience and realised the non-dual supreme state of Brahman—a state which has neither origination nor beginning, middle, or end—what higher thing could one possibly seek thereafter?”
The new metaphysical connotation of the word “moksha” appears to have been gradually adopted into mainstream Hindu scriptural discourse, perhaps becoming increasingly prominent by around the sixth century CE. In this process, “moksha” came to acquire a denotation and connotation broadly comparable to that found in the Jaini Tattvārthasūtra, where it signifies the final state of liberation from bondage. A particularly striking feature of this development may be observed in the Bhagavadgītā. The word “moksha” occurs twice in Chapter 18, while it is absent from the preceding seventeen chapters. Earlier verses generally express the idea of liberation through other terms and verbal forms, especially derivatives of the Sanskrit root muc (“to release” or “to free”), rather than through the noun “moksha” itself.
In Bhagavadgītā Chapter 18, verse 30 Krishna explains that the sublime (sāttvic) intellect is one which knows distinctly what ought to be done (right karma) and what ought not to be done (bad karma), what is to be detested and what not — given a choice between bondage and liberation.
In another verse, 18.66 of the same chapter Krishna tells Arjuna:
सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज ।
अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ॥ 18.66॥
“Abandoning all dharmas, come unto me. I shall liberate you from all sins; do not grieve.”
In the post Bhagavadgītā period the word “moksha” appears in Adi Shankar’s (788 to 820 CE) works – his commentary on Upanishadhas, Gita, Brahmasutra and other writings. By the turn of the century the Jaini meaning of word “moksha” was gradually getting imprinted upon the Hindu ethos.
Since the Hindus and the Jainis both believe in rebirth “moksha” and its meaning (salvation) gelled very well in Hindu psyche and continued to flourish. Nevertheless, one nagging misunderstanding persisted.
Next : Nagging confusion