Heaven and Liberation (Moksha): Interfaith Dialogue

Is Heaven Eternal or Temporary?  

A shaykh once tested his student, a boy devout and disciplined, yet quietly proud.

He said: “Imagine a man who performed many acts of merit, avoided major mistakes, and now faces Divine Judgment. God asks him: ‘Will you rely on your actions or My Mercy?’”

The shaykh added: “Normally, we rely on both, but imagine for a moment somebody had to choose.”

The boy replied: “Since he lived a pious life, I would say his actions. If he were sinful, I would say Divine Mercy.”

The shaykh said: “Very well. The man entered Paradise and enjoyed the fruit of his deeds for many years. Eventually, however, he was asked to leave. He could not remain forever, for his actions - however many - are finite, and a finite number of deeds yields a finite stay in Paradise. In this unique situation, he was told he would be reborn into another mortal world. In this new life, he again lived piously and faced Divine judgment once more. This time, when asked the same question, he chose Divine Mercy over his own merits. He understood that actions, however many, are finite, whereas Divine Mercy and Grace are infinite, and only through it can one attain an eternal Paradise.”

Interestingly, in Hinduism and Buddhism, the heavens are often described as temporary, precisely because they are primarily based on actions (karma). A being enjoys the fruit of their good karma, but once this good karma is exhausted—like a bank balance spent during an expensive holiday—their stay ends, and the soul is reincarnated into another mortal world. The laws of karma (action and its fruit, cause and effect) are often interpreted rigidly, leaving little room for Divine mercy to intervene. This is also why Divine forgiveness or the removing of sins is not really a possibility within the karmic framework, as the Divine side of the spiritual equation is often overlooked, while the human side and human conduct remains the primary factor which determines our fate.

If Paradise in the Abrahamic traditions were based solely on our actions, it too would be finite, and reincarnation might even have been a conceivable possibility within Abrahamic teachings. However, all Abrahamic religions hold that it is primarily the infinite Grace of God that grants us an eternal Paradise, rendering it a gift rather than an earned reward.

While the Abrahamic traditions disagree with the notion of a temporary Paradise, they need not deny that such descriptions within Indic traditions may serve a positive pedagogical purpose. By presenting Paradise as impermanent and ultimately insufficient, these teachings redirect the seeker’s aspiration beyond heavenly reward toward union with the Divine—Moksha, or in Buddhism, Nirvana. 

Therefore, such teachings within the sacred texts can be justified, even if it may not be literally true. This is a possibility given that both Hinduism and Buddhism understand such teachings related to rebirth, heavens, and hells as relative truths rather than ultimate truths (a well established distinction in both Indic traditions). To acknowledge this is not to suggest that relative truths are false or deceptive in any trivial sense. Rather, they are pragmatic expressions of truth, sometimes deliberately dramatic in form, designed to motivate and guide souls toward Liberation or Enlightenment. Frithjof Schuon aptly refers to these truths as “saving truths”.

The analogy is that of a wise teacher who declares, “Only an A is a passing grade,” even though a B or C would in fact suffice. His statement is relatively true: its heightened demand is intended to elicit greater effort and, in the end, greater success among students. In Buddhist terms, such compassionate deception is known as upāya—skillful expression of truth.

A similar pedagogical logic also appears in Abrahamic traditions with the teachings of an eternal Hell. Many respected Christian and Muslim scholars understand that it serves a motivational purpose in terms of fear but question whether there is actually going to be eternal punishment for temporal sin because it appears incompatible with the all-merciful nature of God. Moreover, Hell is described as a place of extreme remoteness from God—and whatever is distant from the Divine is, by definition, doomed to perish. To suggest otherwise would imply two eternities, contradicting the principle of monotheism (see notes below). 

Semitic traditions = Judaism, Christianity & Islam

Indic traditions = Hinduism, Buddhism & Sikhism 

Semitic view: Heaven and Hell are eternal.

Indic view: Heaven and Hell are temporary.

Common ground: Heaven is eternal, Hell is temporary.

NOTE: The Indic traditions claim that both Heaven and Hell are temporary yet they do accept that the highest heavens are eternal (unlike the lower heavens). Conversely, the Semitic traditions claim both Heaven and Hell are eternal yet some scholars accept the possibility that Hell may be temporary. This is the basis upon which we establish the common ground between the two traditions.

Is There a State Beyond Heaven in Islam?

“As for the blissful, they shall be in the Garden, abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as God wills—a gift uninterrupted.” (Qur'an 11:108)

Commentary: At first glance, the verse seems to imply a potential end to Paradise. But it immediately reassures us when it says Paradise is “a gift uninterrupted”—suggesting that this exception does not mean an end to Paradise, but may be alluding to something beyond it. Another verse from the Quran says,

“Allah has promised the believers, men and women, gardens beneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. Abodes of excellence in the gardens of Eden. And greater still, the Riḍwān of Allah. That is the supreme triumph.” (Qur'an 9:72)

A Hadith Qudsi in Sahih al-Bukhari illuminates this further:

"Allah will say to the denizens of Paradise, ‘Are you content?’ They will reply, ‘How could we not be content?’ Allah will say, ‘I will give you better than this.’ They will ask, ‘What is better than this, O Lord?’ He will reply, ‘I will send down upon you My Ridwan…’"

Ridwan is often translated simply as God’s pleasure or approval, but such translations hardly do justice to a state that is described as greater than Paradise itself. Ridwan signifies God’s ultimate acceptance of a soul and the envelopment of that soul in His Presence.  

In Advaita Vedanta, there is something known as krama-mukti, where souls may dwell in heaven for aeons before attaining complete union with Brahman. In both traditions, it can be argued that heaven may not be the ultimate endpoint, but a necessary preparation—toward the Supreme Union.

As Frithjof Schuon observes,

 “Paradise opens out into the Divinity at the end of the cycle ("so long as the heavens and the earth endure") [Quran 11.108]" as is also the case in the Paradises of Vishnu and of Amida [Buddha]" 

    - Frithjof Schuon

Source: Understanding Islam, page 81

Could the Abrahamic traditions ever accept the Hindu and Buddhist belief that Heaven is a temporary state? Only if this impermanence is understood in the positive rather than negative sense. A positive understanding of Heavens impermanence means that it served as a stepping-stone which the soul passes through on its way to something higher. In Vedanta, this is expressed as krama-mukti, where heavenly realms serve as transitional phases which last for thousands of years until they ascend and progress further toward ultimate union with the Absolute. Similarly, in Mahayana Buddhism, the Pure Land (Sukhāvatī) provides a heavenly environment that is supportive and conducive for continued spiritual education and progression. Just as a child may seem to spend time idly playing, yet such play lays the foundation for physical and mental growth, so too heavenly joy can serve as the child’s stage in the posthumous journey. While the intensity of growth may not match that of this world—where suffering and separation accelerate development—these realms still provide a setting for growth that prevents backsliding or the exhaustion of karmic merit. It is only in this sense, as preparatory stages toward higher spiritual attainment, that the Abrahamic traditions could accept the Indic idea of a temporary Paradise.

Can There Be Coexistence Between Heaven and Liberation (Moksha)?  

The Quran promises two Paradises for each blessed soul in the afterlife:

“For he who fears the meeting with his Lord, there will be two Paradises” (55:46).

The scholar Ibn Ajibah says that one Paradise is a reward for actions and the other is a reward for faith. In other words, one is a reward for the body and the other is a reward for the soul. Sahl at-Tustari says that our actions determine our share in the Garden, while faith determines our proximity to God.  Similarly, other scholars say that one Paradise is a physical Garden and the other is a non physical Garden of Divine Proximity and Intimacy. 

Interestingly, the Vedanta teaches that Heaven (swarga) is attained through actions (karma) while Brahman is only attained through knowledge (jnana). The Quranic verse about the two paradises suggests there can be coexistence between the two. Union with God (the drop merging with the Ocean) does not mean the dissolution of our own seperate identity. A concrete example from this world is that of a mystic who experiences ecstatic union with God inwardly while outwardly retaining their individuality.  Ultimate states can encompass both seperation and union without contradiction.  

Frithjof Schuon points out that these two Paradises in the Quranic verse are an exact equivalent of the two bodies of the Buddhas. In Buddhist doctrine, an enlightened being in the post-humous state exists simultaneously in a heavenly body (Sambhogakaya) and in a formless ultimate body (Dharmakaya). 

We should point out that a broader understanding of Moksha allows for the preservation of our personal identity in Paradise, while still being in the supreme state of Divine Union. If it did not, one would have to conclude that the Avataras and all other liberated beings have ceased to exist—a notion no traditional doctrine supports.1 Meister Eckhart, the Christian mystic, beautifully described the supreme union as “fusion without confusion.” The Upanishads describe five types of Moksha, four of which involve eternal residence in heaven and liberation from rebirths. Sayujya is the only one of the five type's of moksha that entails complete merging with Brahman where we no longer exist separately at all, which is the ultimate goal of non-dualists.

What Is the Supreme State and the Highest Bliss in the Afterlife?

In the Indic traditions, it is moksha or nirvāṇa — the drop merging with the ocean, the soul dissolving into its Source. In the Abrahamic faiths, it is the visio beatifica — the direct vision of God. To use an erotic analogy often employed by mystics, the visio beatifica is akin to the rapture of beholding the naked glory of the beloved after a lifetime of separation, while moksha corresponds to the ecstasy of union, where lover and beloved are one. Both describe the soul’s supreme joy in intimacy with the Divine, two modes of the same mystery — the soul’s intimacy with its Source. Muslim scholars tell us that this supreme state takes place in a formless realm, which accords with the Buddhist and Hindu view that the ultimate state is formless, while the heavens abound in form and multiplicity, which are indirect reflections of the Divine. 

Are Spirituality and Sensuality Incompatible?

Many ancient sages and mystics across the globe have recognised that sexuality, music, and beauty are not simply sources of sensual pleasure but possess a sacred dimension. They are capable of leading to spiritual elevation or degradation. Over the course of human history, however, they become increasingly susceptible to degradation because of humanity’s spiritual decline. This explains why the later religions in history, such as Islam, impose stricter regulations on these expressions which is part of the Divine wisdom, tailored to the conditions of the era.

Islam, for instance, tends to censor music, female beauty and sexuality more rigorously than other traditions. Yet paradoxically, it vividly portrays these same sensual pleasures—wine, women, and song—in the spiritual realm of Heaven. This reveals a deeper truth about the complex relationship between spirituality and sensuality.

The sacred texts of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists speak of the sensual delights in Heaven, affirming that sensuality is not inherently profane but possesses a sacred dimension. This is something which the Tantric traditions have understood for centuries. 

The student replies with humility,

“If I am honest, Master, it seems ill. The scriptures warn that indulgence in heavenly pleasures exhausts our good karma (good deeds), causing us to fall back into mortal existence. I have heard that detachment and meditation are still possible in the heavenly realms, allowing progress toward moksha to continue; yet because those celestial pleasures are so exalted and distracting, it demands greater spiritual effort.”

[Moksha, the supreme goal, means union with the Divine]

The master smiles and replies,

“You are right that spiritual progression can continue in the higher worlds. Yet progression there is not only through detachment. In this world, we advance through detachment; in the higher worlds, we may advance through engagement.

The path of detachment is necessary because God is above and beyond all worlds. Yet a deeper understanding reveals that God is also present within all worlds and this explains the path of sacred engagement.

The Infinite is present within the finite; the Formless One is present within all forms, especially the celestial forms above. Through heavenly forms, we may behold the Formless. When this is understood, forms no longer bind the soul through attachment (upādāna), but become a means of knowing God, knowing the Self (jñāna), leading to continued progression, rather than degression.”

He pauses, then adds quietly,

“My own teacher was greater than I. What I may realise only in the celestial worlds above, he perceived in the dense and decadent forms of this world below. On earth, such vision is the exception; in the heavens, it is the norm.”

NOTE:

A quote from the Buddha on the sensual delights of Paradise (source: Magandiya Sutta 75):

"Having conducted himself well in body, speech, and mind, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy destination, in the heavenly world... and there, surrounded by a group of maidens in the Nandana Grove, he would enjoy himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure... What do you think, Magandiya? Would that young god surrounded by the group of nymphs in the Nandana Grove, enjoying himself, provided and endowed with the five cords of divine sensual pleasure, envy [those on earth]... or would he [seek to] return to human sensual pleasures?"

Magandiya: "No, Master Gotama"

Buddha: "Why not?"

Magandiya: "Because celestial sensual pleasures are more excellent and sublime than human sensual pleasures."

What Do the Heavenly Realms and Their Hierarchy of Pleasures Tell Us About the Nature of Human Desire (Kāma)?

A provocative notion in some Sufi literature suggests that the inhabitants of Heaven have forgotten God because they are absorbed in pleasures, while those in Hell call upon God more frequently, because of their suffering, and thus receive His favour. This interpretation, however, is based on a misunderstanding of Paradise and its inhabitants. As F. Schuon eloquently states:

 

“Paradise is a reflection of God, not a veil concealing Him.”

In Buddhism, the lowest heavens are overflowing with the most sublime sensual pleasures—wine, women, and song—while the higher heavens are purely spiritual and more exalted. Hinduism shows a similar overall pattern, yet it does not make a simple distinction between higher spiritual heavens and lower sensual ones. Even in the highest Hindu heavens, sensual pleasures persist. However, such pleasures no longer lead to attachment to the objects, because they now perceive the Divine within all things, regarding them as manifestations of Brahman rather than purely separate objects.

The Sufis say that all desire is ultimately a desire for God, though most remain unaware. In Paradise, when beings attain greater maturity, this reality becomes clear. The objects of sensual desire—wine, women, and song—still exist in the highest and lowest heavens of Islam, but they are no longer seen as multiple distractions from God. Instead, they are recognised as Divine Disclosures (tajalliyāt), transforming enjoyment itself into an act of worship. Tantric schools of Hinduism and Buddhism would agree that sensuality is not a hindrance to spirituality, but a means of Awakening when perceived properly.

In the Muslim Paradise, desire for things other than God dissolves not through negation, but through illumination—for they no longer perceive anything as separate from God. Multiplicity no longer distracts from Unity, the Many no longer distances us from the One.  As they say in the Vedanta, "All is Brahman" (सर्वं ब्रह्म ), "I am Brahman" (अहं ब्रह्मास्मि।). This is non-dual realisation. It is what Imam al-Ghazali alluded to when he said the highest understanding of Divine Oneness is the realisation that there is actually nothing in existence but the solitary One, alone and without partner.  

Desire arises because we see ourselves as separate from the things we seek. This apparent distinction between subject and object dissolves after spiritual enlightenment. In Paradise, the multiplicity of delights and desirable objects is permitted precisely because it is no longer seen as a desire for something other, but rather the Self loving and communing with itself in infinite expressions. "All is Brahman" (सर्वं ब्रह्म ), "I am Brahman" (अहं ब्रह्मास्मि।). Multiplicity no longer divides Unity—but reveals its boundless and inexhaustible nature.

Desire (kāma in Sanskrit) can be transcended in two ways: through detachment or through a deeper perception of the desired object. Deeper perception does not mean indulgence but perceiving the Divine essence within it. This is only possible when we have discovered that same essence within oneself first and this involves detachment. Having found it within, one can return to the world and experience all things not as mere sensual gratification, but as openings to the supra-sensory. This prevents attachment and sufffering, for the object is no longer seen as the endpoint but as a window to the Infinite. Idolatry is to idolise the window itself rather than to see through it. It is this limited, materialistic form of desire (kāma) that is finally transcended through spiritual illumination, here and hereafter.

Notes

* This helps explain why the lower heavens are regarded as temporary within the Indic religions. It is not the pleasures themselves that exhaust one’s karmic merit—otherwise those in the higher realms would also fall—but the attachment (upādāna) to heavenly objects. Those in the lower heavens have limited vision, perceiving only the outer forms of these objects rather than their Divine essence, which generates attachment, and subtle sin, even in Heaven. Remember, Satan was ultimately expelled from Paradise because he only saw the outward form of Adam, made of clay/earth, and failed to perceive the Divine Spirit within. He did not see the underlying Unity beneath all appearances, but only separate - individualised - forms, giving rise to pride and rebellion against the One.  

* We are not saying that the Indian traditions ignore grace. In Mahayana Buddhism, entrance into the Pure Land (Sukhāvatī) is attained through Other-power (tariki 他力) rather than self-power (jiriki 自力), and Bhakti traditions likewise affirm Divine Grace explicitly. However, the general emphasis remains on personal effort and karmic causality (actions and its fruit) as the primary mechanisms of destiny, which explains why Paradise is understood as temporary (a finite number of good acts yields finite residence in Heaven.)

* Shankara, greatest of the Hindu metaphysicians, challenges the Purva-Mīmāṃsaka on the point that karma (actions) can generate its own fruit. He says the Lord—as Inner Controller (Antaryamin)—consciously distributes the fruits of all actions, showing that ultimate destiny depends not solely on human acts but on the intervention of the Divine.

* The two-body Buddhist doctrine (kāya-dvaya) is a well-established concept in early Mahāyāna texts, later expanded into the three-body doctrine (trikāya). The addition of the third body introduces an earthly dimension: the enlightened souls influence continues to operate in the world even as the two transcendent bodies abide in the Beyond.

* Ibn ʿArabī connects the two Paradises to the distinction between the Divine Attributes (ṣifāt) and the Divine Essence (dhāt). The Divine Attributes are manifest, like the formal Paradise (ṣūriyya), while the Divine Essence is beyond form, like the non-formal Paradise (maʿnawiyya). He calls the first, the “Paradise of the [Divine] Attributes,” a physical yet indirect, manifestation of the Divine through the objects that make up the Garden, and the second is the “Paradise of the [Divine] Essence,” which is non-physical, direct, immediate, and Ultimate.

* The following notes were adapted from Hamza Yusuf's article: Death, Dying and the Afterlife: 

Some classical Muslim scholars, including Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, and many Sufis, have argued that Hell may not be eternal. They quote several sources to suggest that Hell may serve as a temporary place of purification rather than eternal damnation. 

Imam al-Ghazali appears to hold a similar position when he suggests that the overwhelming majority of Hell's denizens are ultimately released (see faysal al-tafriqa). We also have authentic Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari which says that even people who did not do any good are released from the fire. 

Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه records the Prophet ﷺ as saying, "Surely a day will come over Hell when it will be like a field of corn that has dried up after flourishing for a while". Similarly Ibn Mas‘ud  رضي الله عنه says, "Surely a time will come over Hell when its gates shall be blown by wind, there shall be none in it, and this shall be after they have remained there for ages." ‘Umar رضي الله عنه, the second Caliph, is recorded as follows: "Even if the dwellers in Hell may be countless like the sands of the desert, a day will come when they will be taken out of it".  
We should reiterate that Hell being a temporary state is a minority opinion and we only highlight it because many have believed that eternal punishment for temporal sins contradicts the All-Merciful nature of God. 

References

1. This point is made in The Essential Writings of Frithjof Schuon, p. 468

Further Reading List

1. What is the Quranic Doctrine of the Afterlife and How is it Related to Sufism? By Martin Lings (Essay)

2. The Two Paradises by Frithjof Schuon (Essay)