As for karma itself, it is apparently only that which binds “jiva” (sentience, life, spirit, etc.) with “ajiva” (the lifeless, material aspect of this world) – perhaps not unlike that which science seeks to bind energy with mass (if I understand either concept correctly). But it is only through asceticism that one might shed his predestined karmic allotment.I suppose this is what I still don’t quite understand in any of these shramanic philosophies, though – their end-game. Their “moksha”, or “mukti”, or “samsara”. This oneness/emptiness, liberation/ transcendence of karma/ajiva, of rebirth and ego – of “the self”, of life, of everything. How exactly would this state differ from any standard, scientific definition of death? Plain old death. Or, at most, if any experience remains, from what might be more commonly imagined/feared to be death – some dark perpetual existence of paralyzed, semi-conscious nothingness. An incessant dreamless sleep from which one never wakes? They all assure you, of course, that this will be no condition of endless torment, but rather one of “eternal bliss”. Inexplicable, incommunicable “bliss”, mind you, but “bliss” nonetheless. So many in the realm of science, too, seem to propagate a notion of “bliss” – only here, in this world, with the universe being some great amusement park of non-stop “wonder” and “discovery”. Any truly scientific, unbiased examination of their “discoveries”, though, only ever seems to reveal a world that simply just “is” – where “wonder” is merely a euphemism for ignorance, and learning is its own reward because, frankly, nothing else ever could be. Still, the scientist seeks to conquer this ignorance, even though his very happiness depends on it – offering only some pale vision of eternal dumbfoundedness, and endless hollow surprises. The shramana, on the other hand, offers total knowledge of this hollowness, all at once – renouncing any form of happiness or pleasure, here, to seek some other ultimate, unknowable “bliss”, off in the beyond…
As for karma itself, it is apparently only that which binds “jiva” (sentience, life, spirit, etc.) with “ajiva” (the lifeless, material aspect of this world) – perhaps not unlike that which science seeks to bind energy with mass (if I understand either concept correctly). But it is only through asceticism that one might shed his predestined karmic allotment.I suppose this is what I still don’t quite understand in any of these shramanic philosophies, though – their end-game. Their “moksha”, or “mukti”, or “samsara”. This oneness/emptiness, liberation/ transcendence of karma/ajiva, of rebirth and ego – of “the self”, of life, of everything. How exactly would this state differ from any standard, scientific definition of death? Plain old death. Or, at most, if any experience remains, from what might be more commonly imagined/feared to be death – some dark perpetual existence of paralyzed, semi-conscious nothingness. An incessant dreamless sleep from which one never wakes? They all assure you, of course, that this will be no condition of endless torment, but rather one of “eternal bliss”. Inexplicable, incommunicable “bliss”, mind you, but “bliss” nonetheless. So many in the realm of science, too, seem to propagate a notion of “bliss” – only here, in this world, with the universe being some great amusement park of non-stop “wonder” and “discovery”. Any truly scientific, unbiased examination of their “discoveries”, though, only ever seems to reveal a world that simply just “is” – where “wonder” is merely a euphemism for ignorance, and learning is its own reward because, frankly, nothing else ever could be. Still, the scientist seeks to conquer this ignorance, even though his very happiness depends on it – offering only some pale vision of eternal dumbfoundedness, and endless hollow surprises. The shramana, on the other hand, offers total knowledge of this hollowness, all at once – renouncing any form of happiness or pleasure, here, to seek some other ultimate, unknowable “bliss”, off in the beyond…
