Sri Sivasenani garu,
There are several triggers. Before I come to them, just a word on Buddhism, which I referenced not to bring in chronology but to highlight the emphasis being given to the idea of moksha (/nirvana). I think Buddhism gives undue importance to moksha (which in itself is a deviation from what the Buddha has intended, but that is a different matter), and this has influenced the mainstream thought somewhat. That the Upanishads are moksha-related is one way of putting it (and rightly so), but in my view the better way of putting it is to say that that they are the knowledge-portions of the Vedas. Yes, I am bring in the old karma kanda -jnana kanda bifurcation, which I think is very apt. As an illustration, if we see the Suka-Vyasa dialogue in the Mahabharata on the basis of this point, the discussion that ensued owes its lucidity to this clear demarcation, which brings in a balance.
Before we proceed, a word on my own viewpoint. I do not give importance to dates, I try to concentrate on ideas and their germs. Dates are useful to me only for the purpose of tracing the trajectory of ideas, nothing more. It is my conviction that many seemingly modern ideas are quite old in their origins, and therefore, to pre-categorize or reject or accept ideas on the basis of chronology is improper. I understand this stand of mine is at variance with accepted scholarship, but I am not an academician, and I belabor under no obligation to be 100% unassailable in my arguments, or 100% meticulous in my references and citations. A clear, reasonable hint or a strong sense is enough for my purposes, which is simply utilitarian: to clarify things for my own self, not to convince any academic peers or trump rivals.
With this, the response proper. Of late I am studying the Vedas, and the overall sense I am getting here is that the Vedas (I am including the Upanishads here, pls note) are rather harmonious in their import, more life-affirming than life-denying. To put it in the old karma terminology, it is the balancing of the pravritti and nivritti paths. It is my opinion that the purushartha framework is an outgrowth of this recognition by someone sometime in the past.
Further, I also think that the development of the original purushartha framework went somewhat like this:
kAma -- artha -- dharma
where, dharma (1) includes in its ambit all that yoga (or the nivritti path) designates/prescribes in addition to the usual, and (2) is itself a further development of the idea of rta (/satya)
So, the original framework in my view must have been
kAma -- artha -- satya/rta
The reasoning that appeals to me in this regard is this:
It is clear to me that the Vedas (cf BrhadAranyaka, for e.g.) recognize desire (kAma) as the principal, central outgrowth of brahman in its creative aspect. That is the central mainspring of all life activity. kAma is even said to be what the being is. The question then comes, how to go about dealing with kAma, and the answer that is provided brings out the concept of means (artha), in the sense of resources. End is kAma, means is artha. Artha is for kAma. What kind of artha? Proper artha. 'Proper' is rta, satya, what we now understand as dharma. It is from this that the modern framework of dharma--artha--kama, in that order, comes.
What about moksha? kAma can be dealt with in two ways: one, thru the path of satisfaction (pravritti), the other, thru the path of extinguishment (nivritti). Moksha is the way or path of extinguishing kAma. Moksha need not be a separate category, it can very well be understood as another mode of proper or appropriate artha. Proper and appropriate implies dharma.
I have said moksha is included within dharma. I think this inclusion was well-understood in ancient times. In the Ramayana, Rama advises Bharata to judiciously allocate time and attention to pursing artha, kama and dharma properly. There is no mention of moksha separately. It is understood. In the Mahabharata, Sri Krishna devotes his early mornings to yogadhyAna. Was he a samnyAsi? No. Then why was he meditating on Brahman? Because it was his dharma, that's why. In the Mahabharata, despite the massive moksha dharma parva portions (which I think were added later, and with good cause, as the MbH had become some sort of the national encyclopedia of India), the idea of moksha is not disproportionately highlighted. Take the BhArata sAvitri for example, considered the essence of the MbH. Dharma is projected as the paramount objective of man, his principal consideration, for it ensures the proper pursuit of the rest. Moksha is not mentioned separately. It is understood.
Of course, here, I am simplistically representing things. I am not talking about the relevance of varNa, Asrama, etc in the above discussions. But that does not detract from the main point for me, which is that the trivarga framework is sufficient to cover human pursuits properly, both in the pravritti or nivritti aspects. The Upanishads, the Jnana-kanda of the Vedas, are not something separate; they form an integral part of the whole Vedas, which must be seen from a "gestalt" perspective to understand purushartha.
Take Samkhya and Yoga, the oldest darshanas, which have taken a severe beating from Vedanta, because they strayed away, in their later avatars, from Sruti-s. I think there are several profound truths in these systems. Take the concept of apavarga, literally 'beyond the vargas'. This is the idea of Moksha. Apavarga is not a separate varga by itself, just a handy name for the idea of mukti, moksha, kaivalya.
An objection may be made that the idea of moksha/apavarga/mukti/kaivalya etc merits mention as a separate category by itself because it is a legitimate objective of human pursuit, of human work, of human activity, of karma. I say that it is clear that karma is the basis of everything. Nothing can be done or achieved without activity, without karma. Knowledge/Jnana bestows liberation, yes, but it cannot do that on its own. Knowledge is the root and fruit of action, jnana is more important than karma, but jnana is not the only thing there is. There is karma, always and everywhere. Given that, there is nothing special about doing karma for moksha. It is understood as artha-work only. No separate category needed.
I believe that this line of thought got clouded a bit sometime in the past, by the advent of Jnana-based systems (late sAmkhya, yes, it is jnana-focused cf. BG), vedanta family (Adi Sankara highlighted Jnana very much, perhaps excessively), and of course, Buddhism (/Jainism). What happened, perhaps inadvertently, is that as darshanas became more and more refined, these Jnana-based systems came to be seen as Jnana-only systems. Taking this + the Ashrama concept, tagging a final category of Moksha to the Purushartha framework began to appeal to people. Trivarga became chaturvarga.
What clinches the issue for me is that the more we go into principal sources, the more the idea of trivarga (with dharma+) emerges. That is a strong factor for my suspicion.
Now, all this is the prattling of a dabbler. I have made a loose argument, not rigorous. Perhaps I have seen things with prejudiced eyes. Perhaps I have an innate (to me) bias. There are things I don't know I don't know.
But I sincerely think, at this stage, that the central idea has merit. My question is: am I right, or wrong? And to what extent?
Kindly let me know if all this makes sense to you.
with kind regards
Harsha