Changes

Meaning : Oh Mrityu ! tell me what I pray you for. About which (Self) people entertain many doubts as to whether It exists or not, in the context of the next world and whose knowledge leads to a great result. This boon that relates to the Self, which is inscrutable and secretive - is what Nachiketa prayed for.  

Meaning : Oh Mrityu ! tell me what I pray you for. About which (Self) people entertain many doubts as to whether It exists or not, in the context of the next world and whose knowledge leads to a great result. This boon that relates to the Self, which is inscrutable and secretive - is what Nachiketa prayed for.  

=== Significance of third boon ===

=== Esoteric meaning ===

Nachiketa’s third question is very subtle and its significance forms the essence of Kathopanishad. It can be said  that the entire purva paksha of vedanta is hidden in this question.   

Nachiketa’s third question is very subtle and its significance forms the essence of Kathopanishad. It can be said  that the entire purva paksha of vedanta is hidden in this question.   

The Charvaka school tells that there is no atma, separate from the body. The Charvaka’s philosophy has been one of the oldest and most prominent opponents of Vedanta philosophy. It may appear to the intelligent persons that Nachiketa’s question is similar to the Charvaka school of thought?    

The Charvaka’s philosophy has been one of the oldest and most prominent opponents of Vedanta philosophy. The Charvaka school does not believe in existence of soul or Atma, and existence after death. Charvakas believe that death is moksha and there is no other place or Brahmaloka that the soul can transmigrate to. It may appear to the intelligent persons that Nachiketa’s question is similar to the Charvaka school of thought.    

Nachiketa’s question was indicating that there is no atma beyond the body, and even if the atma exists, he does not  understand or believe in its existence?  If this is true, then why would Nachiketa ask Yamaraja about Paramapada (highest destination) for the atma which the Charvakas claim does not exist? Charvaka followers do not believe in the other world, but Nachiketa after understanding about atma, shows great faith in the highest spiritual abode, knowing the destination of jiva to be that abode. It is only after understanding this that one can think or discuss the process of  achieving that place. Therefore, Nachiketa is not questioning the existence of soul. Then what could be the meaning of such a question? (12-3-17)  

Nachiketa’s question "It exists or not" seems to imply whether he questions existence or Atma or Self variously called, beyond the bodily state. And if It exists he does not understand or believe in its existence?    

==  ||swarupa () of the ||Jiva () at ||Moksha ==

 

Even in Nachiketa’s time there were some people who accepted that the body as temporary and atma is eternl, here and there.  There were different understanding about life after death, lot of speculation and debate would happen.  Similarly there were diveristy of understanding in regards to Moksha.  For eg:- presently also it is observed that many different understanding are there in regards to mukti.

However, careful understanding of Nachiketa's questions disproves the same. He asks Yama about the Paramapada (highest destination) for It (Self) and convinces Yama that he is a persevering student aspiring to gain the knowledge of Self. This shows that he believed of existence of Atma and that It traverses a path, which no worldly pleasures can take one to. Thus it firmly proves his faith in the existence of path for the Self and presses Yama to instruct in such brahmavidya. If he did not believe in such an existence he would have easily accepted Yama's allurings of sons, cattle and chiranjeevatvam instead he was steadfast about his vidya.  

==  Discussion ==

Till date there are many different versions about the understanding of life after death which let to a lot of speculation and debate. Similarly there is diversity of thought as regards to Moksha.  Sri K. Ramesh's (Bharatiya Vidvat Parishad) presents a simple summary of different thoughts about Moksha as given below

# Mrityu is Moksha according to Charvakas 

# In the Nirishwara sankhya philosophy and similar other philosophers, believe that body is flitting and the atma is nirlepa (without any covering) and free from any qualities, hence  it is only a witness. This raises question about what they are  trying to say, is  that the atma exists?  Does it describe the existence of  atma in moksha or indirectly saying the atma does not exist? 

# In the Nirishwara sankhya philosophy and similar other philosophers, believe that body is flitting and the atma is nirlepa (without any covering) and free from any qualities, hence  it is only a witness. This raises question about what they are  trying to say, is  that the atma exists?  Does it describe the existence of  atma in moksha or indirectly saying the atma does not exist? 

# Similar to Sankhya philosophy, Jains accepts that there are planets beyond this planet but do not believe in the relationship between Jiva and Paramatma. Jain philosophers reject that the Lord is the master of the param pada and the relationship between the Jiva and the Paramatma.  Notably, in the same breath they talk of the existence of the atma but also present that in ||moksha (), the atma is non-existent. That means the different debate in defining moksha decides the existence or non existence of atma. Jain, Buddhist, Sankhya, Carvaka or any other philosophy differed from  may not have been in the same fashion as it is now, but even in the past in whatever name and form they were existing, they were always at loggerheads with Vedanta philosophy.  This has led to confusion amongst seekers rather than knowledge. In Mahabharata during Yaksha praksha Yudhisthira raises this same point in regards to confusion amongst the so-called philosophers. 

# Similar to Sankhya philosophy, Jains accepts that there are planets beyond this planet but do not believe in the relationship between Jiva and Paramatma. Jain philosophers reject that the Lord is the master of the param pada and the relationship between the Jiva and the Paramatma.  Notably, in the same breath they talk of the existence of the atma but also present that in ||moksha (), the atma is non-existent. That means the different debate in defining moksha decides the existence or non existence of atma. Jain, Buddhist, Sankhya, Carvaka or any other philosophy differed from  may not have been in the same fashion as it is now, but even in the past in whatever name and form they were existing, they were always at loggerheads with Vedanta philosophy.  This has led to confusion amongst seekers rather than knowledge. In Mahabharata during Yaksha praksha Yudhisthira raises this same point in regards to confusion amongst the so-called philosophers.