CHAPTER-VIII

CONCLUSION
 CONCLUSION

In our discussions on the theories of moksa of the

five eminent Vedantins. We have noted that in Post-

Sankarite period the concept of bhakti gradually gets

priority over jnEna and karma as the path of liberation. In

later period the concept plays still more dominant role in

philosophical movements in India. Therefore, it may be

helpful if we devote more attention to the concept so that

we can assess the exact significance of the idea in Post-

Sarikarite Vedanta Philosophy.

The Origin of the idea of bhakti is shrouded in

mystery. There are some vedic hymns which refer to the idea

of devotion. Though Upanisadic hymns are more spiritual

than religious in nature in certain cases especially later

upanisads hint at the idea of devotion and the grace of the

Lord. Mundaka upanisad declares "The Self cannot be

realised by the study of vedas, nor by intelligence, nor by

deep learning: it can be realised by him only whom, it

chooses or favours. To him the self reveals its own

 150
_1 s
nature” Svetasvatara Upanisad also refers to the idea of

grace and doctrine of prapatti or Self- surrender. But the

idea of bhakti blooms into a full-blown doctrine with

gradual predominance of Srimad Bhagavatam, Narada SUtra and

PahcarStra. It seems that in the later phase of development

of the vedanta, the Philosophers were not Satisfied with

the impersonal Brahman of the Upanisads and converted the

idea of Brahman to a personal God, i.e. I£vara. The

Bhagavad also offers detailed discussion on bhakti and

prapatti. In dTta Srikrsna declares “Relinquishing all

religious rites and act ions (Yielding merits and demerits),

take refuge in me alone. I shall deliver thee from all

sins*J Again it is stated that “they alone can cross mays

who take refuge in me"* Still Gita does not suggest that

bhakti in the only path to moksa. It also puts equal

emphasis on karma and jhSna. But later vedHntin’s who were

influenced by the Bhagavat dharma emphasised on bhakti

1. Mundaka Upanisad, 3.2.3.

2. Svetasvatara Upanisad, 6.23.

3. Gita, 18.66.

4. Ibid. 7.14.
 151

aspect of Gita, so we note that the vaisnava vedahtins like

Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva and Vallabha explain moksa in

terms of bhakti as a concept.

In the Sandilya SUtra, bhakti is defined as the

highest attachment to God (Paranuraktir iSvare). In Narad

Sutra, bhakti is defined as the intense love, which is of

the nature of highest perfection. We find that Ramanuja’s

conception of bhakti as druvam smrti (Constant meditation),

which is in sense a form of intuitive knowledge, gradually

yields place to the concept of bhakti, where jiiSna

(knowledged) just becomes a means to it. In Madhva,

Vallabha and Nimbarka it is believed that it is the

knowledge which is eclipsed by devotion. According to them

bhakti is not identical with Sraddha (faith), which rather

forms the part of all actions. In Narada SUtra it is

stated that, first there must be belief in God, then this

is deepened into faith and faith is ultimately deepened

into devotion.^ Bhakti is not also associated with any from

of desire, because desire is often directed towards worldly

5. NSrada SUtra, 84.

 152

objects Bhakti is rather a state which suggests a man’s

spontaneous detachment from the pleasures and pains arising

out of the worldly events. Bhakti therefore implies a sense

of dedication and surrender. So Vallabha defines bhakti as

composed of the root bhaj (Service) . and suffix kti (love).

So the two together imply that bhakti is an action of bhaj

i.e. Service, which in order to be complete implies love.

Without'love service is not perfect, and without service

love is not complete. Whereas Madhva defines bhakti as an

affection with the full consciousness of the greatness of

the object of devotion.** According to him even the

performance of religious duties cannot save a man, it is

only bhakti which can assure moksa.

Thus bhakti which starts as a sEdhanE (effort or

practice) by the person who desires liberation gradually

turns into a means as well as an end of moksa. The Self-

effort which Vallabha classifies as maryEda mErga is given

a secondary place to the pustimErga in which the grace of

God is the aim of the devotee. So the emphasis is put on

6. Madhva’s MahSbhSrata tatparya-nirnaya, 1.106-7

 153

the aspect of love(prema) and affeetion(raga). It is love,

which alone can ensure that bhakti results in oneness of

all with the Self ( SarvStmabhSva) . Through the deep feeling

of love one sees every where one’s own beloved, but God

being the highest of all objects of love it is natural that

through intense attachment to Him one should be able to

perceive Him in all beings, because all these are

manifestations of God. This can be possible only when

bhakti is regarded as a method of intense love. Even this

intense love continues in the State of moksa. Therefore,

bhakti is regarded both as a means and end.

The entire Vedantic corpus which is based on the

multifarious interpretation of the BrahmasUtra of

Badarayana, shows a mosaic of view points. Each interpreter

offers a new twist to its metaphysics, epistemology and

cosmology keeping the central concept of Brahman as the

Ultimat Reality. But when it comes to the doctrine of

moksa we note a distinct tilt towards theology as far as

7. Vallabha’s BhSsya Prakasa on Brahma Sutra Quoted from

History of Indian Philosophy of S.N.Dasgupta.(Delhi,
Motilal Banarasidass, 1988) Vol.IV P. 352.
 154

the means of realising the moksa is concerned. Does it

signify that Vedanta system of thought which started as the

finest example of pure Philosophy ultimately reduced itself

to a mere theology? Affirmation of this view, may in

certain sense, lead to doing injustice to such a vast

system. Each of these interpreters had taken recourse to

logical and rational analysis while establishing his

metaphysical and epistemological stand points. May be

Sankara’s transcendental Idealism is replaced by a form of

Realism. But it is a question of presenting alternative

metaphysical scheme. And every philosopher has the right to

do so. Besides, we have all along taken care to show that

each Philosopher of this system build up his metaphysics as

well as cosmology on the firm ground of epistemology.

Sankara’s entire thesis revolves round the concept of

subject-predicate statement seen from two angles- empirical

(vyavaharika) and transempirical (parmSrthika). But for him

the ultimate knowledge implies a non-distinction between

the knower, known and knowledge Ramanuja, on the other

hand, develops an epistemological position which

highlights the distinction between the subject and the

 155

predicate in the process of knowledge. Therefore,

attributive nature of knowledge of the highest Reality is

highlighted. In case of Vallabha and Nibarka the logic of

difference is emphasized. But Madhva leads to the logical

conclusion by arguing that duality is the only criterion of

knowledge. The names of each school of VedSnta are largely

determined on their epistemological position vis-a-vis the

knowledge of the Ultimate Reality. Similarly in case of all

the systems of Vedanta, bondage is ascribed to ignorance

about the true nature of the self. There are no traces of

theology in the matters of epistemology and metaphysics.

There is a common core in the Philosophy of vedanta as

a whole. For the Vedlntins man is conceived essentially as

“divinity struggling for expression through psycho-physical

organism. Purity, knowledge and freedom are his essential

0
nature". All the Vedantins emphasize that the ultimate

goal of life is spiritual realisation and the fullest

manifestation of the inherent divinity. For them, the

8. Swami RanganSthSnanda, Eternal values for a changing

society, p.35.
 156

Reality or Absolute is not just logical postulate, it is

also a fact of experience (anubhava). Regarding the

attribution of godhood to Brahman by Ramanuja, NimbSrka,

Vallabha and Madhva, it can be said that there is no

contradiction or incongruity in this. “Vedanta speaks of

the same Reality as Brahman in its metaphysics as Atman in

its epistemology ... and as TSvara or Bhagavln in its

Q /
religion". As SrimadbhEgavatam declares : “knower of truth

declare it is one and the same non-dual truth of pure

consciousness that is variously called Brahman, paramatman

and Bhagavan"

Another important feature of vedanta philosophy is its

closeness to the life. Sarikara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva

and others vedantins were not only philosophers but eminenj-

spiritual leaders too. They could create a^§p«fal awareness

and in the process offered 1 i%in_g**p1iilosophies, which could

provide direction to the life of the common man. Excepting

9. Ibid., p.42.

10. Vadanti tat tattvavidah tattvam yat jfiEnam advayam,

Brahmeti paramStmeti bhagavEna iti Sabdyate,
Srimadbhagavatm, 1.2.2.
 157

Buddhism, no other school of Indian philosophy had such a

sway over the masses. Therefore moksa, which emphasizes the

identity between jivatman and paramaiman, is so much

entrenched in the cultural psyche of the masses that no

amount of scientific advancement has been able to erase it.

However influential a philosophical theory may be, it

turns into a dogma unless certain theoretical doubts are

cleared. In this context, I will like to discuss the

critical views of some important Indian thinkers of our

times. The issues they raise about moksa are very

significant. Here, I intent to discuss these issues with

special reference to the views of Daya Krishana,and Rajendra

Prasad.

Daya Krishna in his book Indian Philosophy : A Counter

Perspective prefers to call the concept of moksa, a ‘myth*.

According to him it is such a perpetuated myth which causes

more damage to Indian philosophy than good. We agree whole

heatedly with him as long as he shows that certain

misconception about the implications of the term

 158
moksa has largely been responsible for dubbing Indian

philosophy as non-rational dogmatic and mystical. I have

discussed these misconceptions in my introductory chapter.

But I beg to differ with him when he says that moksa as a

value does not add anything positive to the concept of

human life. Daya Kr ishana says, "moksa, in most Indian

systems, is either a denial or a transcendence of the

world. It is linked with the fourth aSrama, that is

sannyasa, in which one is supposed to be ritually dead to

the obligations of society, i.e., the world".^ Obviously,

he is discussing the nature of moksa as a purusSrtha, and

its relation to the value called dharma. In his opinion

artha, kama and dharma, these three purusarthas are

sufficient to provide an over-view of human life.

Moksa does not make it more worthy. The reason for holding

such an attitude can be traced to the opinion that

moksa is a transcendence of 'other-centred* consciousness.

It is the ‘other-centred* consciousness which is the source

of social obligations. According to him moksa is a self

centric value, because it aims at withdrawing from the

11. Daya Krishna, Indian Philosophy, 43.

 159

social and moral obligations and concentrating on one’s own

self-realisation. For him man is primarily a social animal

and turning away from the society does not serve any better

purpose for the meaning. So he says : “Advaita vedanta

radically denies the ultimate reality of the ‘others',

while the non-Advaitic schools primarily assert the

relationship of the self to the Lord, and secondarily the

relation between one self and another". In another book

entitled social philosophy : past and present he uses the

same argument to prove the ‘atman-centric* approach of the

Indian tradition. According to him in this tradition, life

seems to centre on man’s quest for self-realisation; the

realisation' that the empirical self is non-different from

the transcendental self. Summing up the life-view emanating

from such a goal, he says that it is ‘a-social* or ‘trans-

social*. Though it is rooted in man’s empiricality and the

road to self-realisation is through society, yet, “society

is not to be the object of perpetual concern in the sense

that man’s perpetual concern in the sense that man’s

12. Daya Krishna, Indian Philosophy, p.197.

ultimate realisation is not through it, but apart from

11
it. We agree that in certain sense moksa is tran-

empirical. But trans-empiricality implies rising above the

ego-centric concerns, which is the root cause of social

maladies as well as individual sufferings. Moksa is not

totally bereft of a social dimension, this is evident from

Sankara’s assertion that in the state of self-knowledge the

narrow social distinctions of caste, creed are holds no

meaning. 14

Rajendra Prasad in his paper “The theory of Purugarths

: Revaluation and Reconstruction", argues that moksa as a

purusartha belongs to a separate category that the three

fold values of artha, kama and dharma. In his opinion

trivarga scheme is meant for the social man, whereas

moksa is a personal goal. He says “Basically moksa is a

personal goal, a kind of personal goal for peace and

13. Daya Krishna, Social philosophy : past and present

(Simla, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1996),
P. 19 .

14. Sankara’s Atmobodha, 10.

“Owing to Its association with various upEdhis,_ such
as caste, colour and creed are superimposed on Atman,
as colour, flavour and so forth, on water*.
 161

salvation ... But the main reason for emphasising the

importance of moksa, seems to be the awareness that none of

the other three goals are fully or exclusively personal,

and without the addition, or authoritative inclusion, a

purely, or dominantly, personal goal, the list of

purusartha cannot provide a complete statement of what man

aims at, or should aim at".^ In his opinion, therefore,

dharma, artha, kSma should not be taken as a means of

moksa. So the socio-centric value like dharma, artha and

kama belongs to a separate category and which can not

accommodate moksa which is person-centric.

He argues that for social well-being trivarga scheme

is sufficient. To make moksa as socially more meaningful we

should include it within the category of kama. Here he

means by moksa a desire (kama) for personal peace and

happiness. But kSma as a value has certain peculiarities

which are not reflected in the notion of moksa, Though kSma

in etymological sense implies ‘any desire* and there can be

15. Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol-IX, Dordiecst, p.49-

76.
 162

as well a desire for moksa which is otherwise known as

mumuksa, yet kama in traditional sense is regarded as a

desire for empirical fulfilment. The spiritual connotation

of the term moksa loses its significance, if it is included

as a part of kama. Spirituality and the yearning for it is

very natural to man. And there is no harm if we retain it’s

original significance. Moksa may be a strictly personal

value but spiritual fulfilment is not social in nature.

There are some other writer like P.NSgarSja Rao who

characterises moksa as a religious ideal and wish to

dismiss it as unsuitable for secular morality.*6

Apart form the theoretical and conceptual difficulties

the other important factor that seems to bother Dayakrisna,

RSjendra Prasad or P.NEgaraja Rao, is their secular and

rational perspective. In western culture man is either seen

as a rational being (Socrates) or Social being (Plato) or

political being (Aristotle). But in our culture man is

conceived to be a spiritual being (Amrutasya Putra).

16. P.Nagaraja Rao, The Four Values in Indian Philosophy

and Culture, A study of the puruslrtha, Prasaranga,
University of Mysore, 1979, pp.5-6.
 163

Spiritual need not be always religious. Buddhist were never

religious but they believe in nirvana. Spirituality does

not refer to a super-natural state. So one need not feel

apologetic about talking of moksa as a spiritual goal, for

their is nothing non-secular and non-rational about it.

II

In the previous section we have discussed the views of

some modern Indian philosophers regarding the acceptability

of moksa as a spiritual goal. Now we intend to discuss the

attitude of the modern man regarding spirituality. For the

modern and educated Indians science alone can guide man to

the future. They strongly believe that any subject that

does not stick to the hypothetical - deductive method of

.science does not have any respectability. Secondly, it is

a common belief that science alone can offer us truths

which are certain, hence meaningful. At the sametime these

are the men who complain about decadence of moral values

and the degradation of human life. Following the scientific

model they believe that there cannot be any truth beyond

the world of objective and material world. But in this case

their views of science is out dated. The confidence and the

 164

arrogance of the scientist about their achievement is now

replaced by a sense of humility. The modern day scientists

have realised that in spite of advancement of knowledge the

universe remains a mystery. The greatest mystery of the

universe is the mystery of man. So far the science has

believed in ‘observable* but now it has realised that the

data of this observable universe also includes the ever­

present datum of the ‘observed*. As Sir James Jean points

out :

"Physical science set out to study a

world of matter and radiation, and

finds that it cannot describe or

picture the nature of either, even to

itself. Photons, electrons and protons

have become as meaningless to the

physicist as x,y,z, are to a child on

its first day of learning algebra. The

most we hope for at the moment is to

discover ways of manipulating x,y,z,

without knowing what they are, with

the result that the advance of

 165
s'
knowledge is at present reduced to

what Einstein has described as

extracting one incomprehensible fism

j7 /
another incomprehensibly^.

So we find that the scientists have realised that in

spite of the so called intellectual progress, the universe

remains a mystery. So they have realised the importance of

understanding the concept of man as the knower. Lincoln

Burnett points out :

“In the evolution of scientific

thought one fact has become

impressively clear; there is no

mystery of the physical world which

does not point to a mystery beyond

itself". All high roads of the

intellect, all bye-ways of theory and

conjecture, lead ultimately to an

abyss that human ingenuity can never

17. James Jean, The New Back Ground of Science, p.68,

quoted from the book - Eternal values for a changing
society, p.9.
 166

span. For man is enchained by the very

condition of his being, his finiteness

and involvement in nature

Julian Huxley with to the development of the

biological sciences refers to the same direction. He says

“In the light of our present

knowledge, man’s most comprehensive

aim is seen not as mere survival, not

as numerical increase, not as

increased complexity of organization

or increased control over his

environment, but as greater fulfilment

the fuller realization of more

possibilities by the human species

collectively and more of its component

members individually ... Once greater

fulfilment is recognised as man’s

ultimate or dominant aim, we shall

18. Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein,

pp.126-127, quoted from the Book Eternal values for a
changing society, p.183.
 167

need a science of human possibilities

to help, guide the long course of

psycho-physical evolution that lies

ahead”.^

From the above remark by the eminent scientists it is

clear that rather than matter and objects, it is the man

which holds the center-stage. In the ancient western

culture which is basically Greco-Roman, man is conceived as

a moral being. But in Indian culture man transcends, the

social morality and is identified as divine. According to

it man is the subject, the self and cannot be equated with

mere objects. Man has a profound dimension which cannot be

reduced to physical or mechanical categories.

The modern age is witnessing a growing urge in man

everywhere to realise his true self. He is experiencing a

hunger for infinite and eternal. In the background of this

modern trend the vedSntic culture become significant. The

.19. Jullian Huxley, Evolution After Darwin : the

University of Chicago Centennial, Volume.I, pp.20-21.
 168

modern scientist’s urge for spirituality can be summed up

in the words of Pera Teilhard de Chardin. He says “The time

has come to realize that an interpretation of the universe

- even a positivist one - remains unsatisfying, unless it

covers the interior as well as the exterior of things :

Mind as well as matter. The true physics is that which

will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his

20
wholeness in a coherent picture of the world".

It is high time that the Indian people, especially the

scholars, instead of shying away from the discussion of

spiritual and moral in the name of scienticism should turn

their attention to our own theories of spirituality to

extend the horizon of their wisdom. “If man does not

acquire this strength of spirituality from within, he will

have to depend more and more on external sources for

stabilizing himself. Such external dependence, .For clinical

purposes occasionally is understandable. By^to make it the

normal pattern of human life is to dra/n human life of all

20. Pera Teilhard de Chardin, . The Phenomenon of man,

Collins London, 1959, pp.35-36.
 169

spiritual values and to surrender human destiny to social

engineering techniques such as of molecular biology, and

21
convert human society to an animal firm".

What we need now is not knowledge but passing from

knowledge to wisdom, from ego-centredness to ego-

transcendence. Referring to the need Bertrand Russell says,

“The human race has survived hitherto owing to ignorance

and incompetence ; but, given knowledge and competence

combined with folly, there can be no certainty of survival.

Knowledge is power, but it is power for evil just as much

as for good. It follows that, unless man increases in

wisdom as in knowledge, increase of knowledge will be

22
increase of sorrow".

So we have to adopt a new life view. This life view

can be drawn from the vedanta system which looks at man and

his life in its wholeness. Its central theme is Man - Man

21. RangariSthSnanda, Eternal Values for a Changing

Society, p. 185.

22. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society,

pp.120-121. Quoted from Eternal Values for a Changing
Society.
 170

in search of the truth of life. There is divinity and

perfection within man which he has to realise by. turning

his eyes within.

Swami Ranganathananda very rightly points out that the

vadantins answer to the questions regarding the nature of

universe is that the highest reality is nothing but sum

total of all souls, human and non-human, whose limited

expression in space and time is this world. Thus “vendanta

speaks of one and the same Reality as Brahman in its

metaphysics, as Atman in its epistemology and mysticism,

and TSvara or BhagavSn in its religion*.^ Srimad

Bhagavatam declares “Khower of truth declare that it is one

and the same non-dual truth of pure consciousness that is

variously called Brahman, Paramatman, Bhagavan. In this

sense vedanta is both a philosophy and a religion. The

absolute is not a mere logical postulate, it is also a

given fact of experience. It is the unity of reason and

man.

23. Eternal Values for Changing Society, pp.42-43. *

 171

Man is painfully aware of the bondage of finitude and

limitations of his empirical world, in him is also a

longing for freedom and the infinitude of being. Vedantin

theory of moksa simply hits at this point. Inspite of

variations in interpretation, all the Vedantins imply by

moksa - freedom from the bonds of imperfections, freedom

from death and misery.

At this stage one may argue that there is definitely

a need for spirituality in the modern age, but in the name

of spirituality man cannot sacrifice his rationality and

land himself in religious dogmatism. The claim that we have

made earlier about VedSnta seems to be too tall. Does not

REmanuja, Nimbarka, Madhva and Vallabha reduce moksa into

a saga of religious faith? Bhakti and faith in iSvara seems

to be only path prescribed for the realisation of the self.

The modern mind with its scientific temper and rational

outlook may find it absurd to accept such a path for

spiritual development. Now it is my task to examine how far

this sort of criticism is justified.

 172

First, the opposition between faith and reason is a

relic of the western history of ideas. For them religion is

based on faith; Science and philosophy is based on reason.

In the medieval philosophy this division was perpetuated.

The conflict between two was there in the western history

from Greco-Roman times and it became intensified during the

predominance of Christianity in middle ages. It became

prominent during last four hundred years. With the

development of science this division was rooted more

strongly in the western mind. So religion is considered as

a matter of dogma where there is no scope for questioning

or free inquiry. The modern Indian mind and uncritical

follower of the west started believing in the opposition of

the two, reason and faith. In Indian culture dar&an implies

a search for truth in its integral wholeness, which does

not allow such conflicts.

In our culture faith is not the key to spirituality.

It is Sraddha that is a combination of reverence and

conviction in the ultimate truth. It is not viSvSsa or

 173

belief which allows swallowing of every thing that is given

by the authority. When the Kathopanisad gives us this story

of a young boy NaciketS, who inspired by passion for truth,

is said to have Sraddha. Therefore we find Naciketa

indulging in enquiries about the highest knowledge without

any trace of accepting things without being convinced. So

Sraddha implies the spirit of enquiry. So in the Indian

context we cannot understand, its culture and philosophy

with these two-fold division of faith and reason.

Now we come to the specific context of bhakti in case

of RSmSnuja and others. First of all bhakti as a term must

--------------' ■ ” ~ ->

be understood in correct perspective. It, etymologically,

means paranurakti i.e. the absolute conviction in a higher

reality. For RSmSnuja bhakti is not the only means of

moksa. He accepts the importance of karma and jhEna along

with bhakti as a pattern of liberation. For him when a man

knows the real nature of the self his heart melts with love

for the highest reality i.e. iSvara. In other words he

overcomes the limitations of his ego to surrender himself

totally to the Lord. RamEnuja categorically makes a

 174

distinction between the lower bhakti and higher bhakti.

Prayer, meditation etc. which are considered to be a part

of religion in general sense, belong to lower bhakti. But

higher bhakti transcends all rituals and it is nothing but

the intuitive knowledge of the identity with the divine. So

we cannot accuse Ramanuja of reducing the quest for

ultimate truth, into a bundle of narrow religious

practices. In case of Nimbarka also there is a combination

of karma jnSna and bhakti in his scheme of moksa. He

introduces the notion of prapati in this scheme to

highlight the desire of the self for the ultimate truth.

According to Madhva bhakti is the attachment of the

heart for TSvara presided by full knowledge and belief that

He is the best. It is based on adequate knowledge and

conviction of His greatness. So it is obvious that he does

not talk of blind faith in God without the real knowledge

accompanying the faith. In case of Vallabha, too bhakti

without the knowledge is inadequate. From our analysis of

the idea of bhakti in the philosophies of Ramanuja,

Nimbarka, Madhva, it follows that we cannot apply the

 175

western model of faith versus reason in case of their

concept of moksa. They, no doubt, talk of God as the

highest reality. But the introduction of the concept of God

does not turn philosophy into religion. If that would have

been the case then half of the philosophies of the world

would not have been philosophy but religion. There is no

doubt that vediTntins like Ramanuja not only talk of God as

the highest Reality but also chart out the path for

realising it and experiencing it. This may create the

impression that religious elements are predominant in their

philosophy. But as I have already discussed, religion and

religious experiences are not a matter of blind faith but

a matter of knowledge. It may not be rational knowledge but

a knowledge in the wider sense of the term. It is more a

quest for spirituality rather than a blind acceptance of

the .*dogma of God.

I would like to e-dnclude my discussions on the

VedSntic conceprTn moksa by refuting the charge that the

ideal of moksa makes a man a recluse, unfit for a healthy

social life. Moksa as an ideal is neither personalistic nor

 176

individualistic. Bhagavad GTta sums up the position of a

liberated man by saying that he acts not for his own self

but for the welfare of all created beings(PrajE). Moreover,

moksa understood in the sense of self realisation, implies

that man is not an isolated ego-centric being but a part of

the cosmos, the Brahman, which etymologically means, “to

grow* or “that which is all embracing". Even if this ideal

is not realised, the very quest for such a realisation is

enough to make the society a better place to live in. Let

me conclude this work with the upanisadic prayer :

Asa to ma sat gamaya

tamaso ma jyotirgamaya

mrtyorma amrtamgamaya.^