Grace and Karma
In the Abrahamic traditions, salvation or Paradise is primarily considered a Divine gift rather than something earned through personal effort. Human works, however numerous, remain finite, while God’s Mercy is infinite. Only through this boundless Grace, the argument goes, can a soul attain eternal Paradise. We could argue that if entry into Paradise were only attained through a personal number of good deeds, then one’s stay there would logically also be finite.
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 returns to the cycle of rebirth. The laws of karma (action and its fruit, cause and effect) are often interpreted rigidly, leaving little room for Divine Mercy and Forgiveness to intervene. The Divine side of the equation is often overlooked, while the human side remains the primary factor in determining our fate.
Applying the same logic in the opposite direction, we can also see why many eminent Muslim and Christian scholars argued that Hell may not be eternal, because eternal punishment for temporal sin seems inconsistent with the infinite Mercy of God. The scriptural references to eternal damnation are not literally true, in their view, but do serve a positive pedagogical purpose for the public.
Semitic view: Heaven and Hell are eternal.
Indic view: Heaven and Hell are temporary.
Common ground: Heaven is eternal; Hell is temporary
The Solar and Lunar Path
The Upaniṣads describe two upward paths after death: Pitṛyāna (the Lunar Path, also known as the Path of the Ancestors) and Devayāna (the Solar Path, also known as the Path of the Devas). Not literal journeys to the physical sun and moon, but symbolic paths leading beyond earthly existence into higher spiritual planes.
Pitṛyāna, the Lunar Path, is the path of action (karma). Through righteous deeds and moral living, one accumulates merit (puṇya), which leads to heavenly realms where celestial pleasures are enjoyed. According to some interpretations, even an atheist who lived virtuously may enter this path. Yet these heavens are temporary. When merit is exhausted, the soul returns to mortal existence and the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).
Devayāna, the Solar Path, requires not only good action but also spiritual knowledge (jñāna) — an inward realisation of one’s true identity and unity with the Divine. This knowledge can never arise through busy activism but rather detachment, stillness, contemplative concentration and a turning inward toward the Divine within the heart.
Even the seeds of such realisation can prevent the soul from falling back into the cycle of rebirth. Supported by both merit and inner knowledge, the soul continues ascending through luminous heavenly realms until it attains final Liberation (mokṣa) — union with the Divine. In Vedānta, this gradual ascent is known as krama-mukti (“gradual Liberation”).
However, what both traditions ultimately affirm is the same conviction: eternal Salvation or Liberation cannot be earned by action alone. The journey may be described differently, and the destination conceived differently, but the essential threshold is the same. Without some level of inner knowledge or intuition of the Divine, no accumulation of deeds — however sincere — carries the soul to its final and permanent home.
Notes
* Krama-mukti is known in Vedānta as the indirect path toward Liberation through heavenly realms, in contrast to the saint who attains direct Liberation immediately at death (videha-mukti) or even during life (jīvan-mukti); both types of saints bypass the paradisal detour of krama-mukti, which appears to be intended for ordinary souls with partial realisation and merit.
In Buddhism, it is often said that the lower heavens abound with sensual pleasures while the higher heavens are purely spiritual. Many modern readers assume that rebirth in the sensual heavens represents a kind of spiritual failure. Yet this interpretation misrepresents how many Buddhists historically understood their tradition. This point has been made by Stephen Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies and contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Buddhist Practice.
Renowned figures such as Buddhaghosa, the great Theravāda commentator, and Xuanzang, the influential Chinese pilgrim-monk, actively aspired to rebirth in the sensual heavens of Tāvatimsa or Tusita, the former corresponds to Indra’s Heaven in Hindu cosmology. These were vibrant worlds of vivid sensual delight — filled with exquisite beauty, celestial music, sumptuous feasts, lavish festivities, and erotic pleasures with celestial maidens (apsaras). Later Burmese tradition, preserved in the Buddhaghosuppatti, even depicts Buddhaghosa dwelling in a celestial golden mansion attended by a thousand heavenly maidens while awaiting Maitreya (see Jenkins, “Heavenly Rebirth and Buddhist Soteriology,” Oxford Handbook of Buddhist Practice, p. 396).
Aspiration for these realms was far from marginal in the past, and the early Buddhist suttas of the Pali Canon never portray these worlds negatively when approached with right motivation. Instead, they describe them as fortunate destinations, where beings enjoy the fruits of their good karma and can continue to hear teachings from the Buddhas and great teachers of that realm. The Buddha himself ascended to the Tāvatimsa Heaven to teach the Dharma to his deceased mother. The early texts present these sensual heavens as compatible with continued spiritual progress. Jenkins notes that even beings enjoying the delights of the Nandana pleasure grove were portrayed as capable of hearing the Dharma and progressing spiritually, illustrating his broader notion of “dharmalogical heavens.”
The discomfort many Western minds feel with heavenly sensuality stems from seeing sensuality and spirituality as inherently incompatible. In contrast, Indic traditions have always been more willing to see them as harmonious.
Modern critics sometimes argue that the sensual heavens are problematic precisely because their optimal sensual conditions make genuine spiritual progress nearly impossible. It would be like sending a student to university equipped with a godlike body, extraordinary attractiveness, surrounded by beautiful women, festivals, and every pleasure imaginable. One would expect such a student to become too distracted to attend university lectures and serious study. Similarly, one might assume that a being reborn in the sensual heavens would be too entranced to attend the celestial assemblies where Buddhas and great teachers expound the Dharma. The only goal, therefore, should be Nirvāṇa itself, which is the supreme state beyond the Heavens.
For most people, however, the direct leap to Nirvāṇa was considered very difficult, attainable only by a small minority of advanced ascetics. Heavenly rebirth therefore functioned not as a spiritual failure but as an accessible stepping stone on the gradual path to Nirvāṇa.
It is also worth mentioning that from a Tantric Buddhist perspective, these sensual heavens are not that much of a problem in the first place. From the Tantric perspective, spiritual instruction is not confined to formal teachings alone but can also be disclosed through sensory experience itself. Beauty, music, and sexuality can become vehicles of spiritual progression. From this perspective, we can say that it is not only the Buddhas and teachers within heaven, but the entire heavenly environment itself participates in the progression towards Nirvāṇa and Enlightenment.
The classical Buddhist view, therefore, was not that heavenly pleasures are inherently bad, but that they are good — just not the ultimate state. The heavens are not Nirvāṇa, yet neither are they mere distractions or spiritual traps. They can serve as genuine stages on a gradual path to Nirvāṇa, much like the Hindu concept of krama-mukti or devayāna, in which heavenly states function as waystations on the journey to final Liberation.
Notes
* A quote from the Buddha on the sensual delights of Heaven (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."
Is Sensuality Incompatible with Spirituality?
Traditionally, music, beauty, and sexuality were understood as double-edged realities — capable of elevating the soul toward God or dragging it into delusion. Over time, however, they have become increasingly prone to the latter, given the natural spiritual decline of humanity across the ages. This helps explain why Islam, the last of the major revelations, places greater restrictions on such realities than many earlier traditions — not because these things are inherently evil, but as a diagnosis of the human condition in the latter times. As humanity's spiritual integrity weakens, these realities become more susceptible to misuse and less likely to serve as vehicles of transcendence.
In the primordial Golden Age, humanity dwelt in a state of greater spiritual wholeness. Under such conditions, beauty, music, and sexuality were more naturally capable of elevating the soul, and therefore required less restraints and censorship. Most of the art and music produced in that time was of an angelic rather than demonic inspiration. If these realities could serve as vehicles of ascent during humanity's original condition on earth, they can do so all the more in Paradise — where, as we have seen, wine, celestial music, and the company of heavenly maidens exist in resplendent fullness, no longer as temptations pulling the soul away from God, but as Divine Disclosures drawing it ever deeper into Him.
In Hinduism, Liberation (Moksha) Is the Supreme State, Beyond Heaven — Does Islam Have a Similar Concept?
The highest spiritual state may not demand we choose between preserving our personal identity in Heaven or merging with the Divine completely—the latter means the soul dissolving into the Divine like the drop merging with the ocean (Moksha in Hinduism). We should point out that a broader understanding of Moksha allows for the preservation of our personal identity in Heaven, while still being in the liberated 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.
Can these two states co-exist within the Abrahamic traditions?There is one verse in the Quran which 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.
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.
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 and sexual pleasures persist (see note 7 below). 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 (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
1. 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.
"…the fire does not burn their male organ; in Svarga (heaven) they have plenty of women."
It is a misconception to assert that, in Hinduism, the lower heavens are dominated by sensual pleasures, while the higher heavens embody pure spirituality. In the highest eternal abodes, liberated souls after death are depicted as enjoying the sublimely sensual and sexual pleasures of heaven. This is not crude lust but a sanctified sensuality.
Multiple Purāṇas vividly illustrate these enjoyments of the supreme realms which are taken from traditional commentators:
- The Brahma Purāṇa (65.23–24 portrays Viṣṇu-loka (Vaikuntha) as "eternal" (verse 77) and resplendent with celestial maidens whose faces are "as charming as the moon" and whose "breasts are plump and uplifted." It states that the residents "dally with the celestial nymphs." (Translated by Board of Scholars, edited by J. L. Shastri)
- In the Skanda Purāṇa (V.iii.198.115–117), the inhabitants of Rudraloka (Śivaloka) are said to "sport about with celestial girls" unbound by worldly constraints. (Translated by Ganesh Vasudeo Tagare)
- The Śiva Purāṇa (Vidyēśvara Saṃhitā 1.24.68–70) depicts a purified soul in Brahmā's region "sporting with a hundred virgins." (Translated by Board of Scholars, edited by J. L. Shastri)
Matsya Purāṇa 78.10: “He also goes to all the seven lokas (seven divine worlds), in each kalpa [cosmic cycle], where he enjoys in the company of the nymphs and gets bliss…” (translated by the Taluqdar of Oudh, edited by B.D. Basu, 1916). This verse seems to illustrate the devayana path, because souls ascend through the heavens (rather than descend), progressing gradually and ultimately attaining complete Liberation (moksha).
Madhvācārya's Madhvavijaya (Chapter 11) further describes muktas (liberated souls) in Vaikuntha's eternal realm delighting in "conjugal bliss" with heavenly maidens. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad 8.12.3, notes that after death, the liberated soul “arises from the body, attains the light of the Cosmic Self, and appears in his own form. He then freely moves about, eating, playing, or enjoying himself — with women, carriages, or relatives — without any memory of the body in which he was born.”
Another section of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (8.2.9) describes the liberated soul’s ability to fulfil all desires effortlessly after death, for his desires (kāma) have become pure (satya) and are instantly realised:
"Then if he desires the company of women, they appear before him according to his wish. Being with them in that world, he becomes great"
Obviously, the supreme state of Liberation—mokṣa or mukti—transcends all of these sensual delights. Yet it is false to claim that such pleasures are wholly absent for liberated souls. On the contrary, they flourish there in resplendent fullness, free from affliction and attachment, though they remain subordinate to the ultimate bliss of Union with the Absolute.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment