This ‘terms and definitions’ post is in two parts (there are, after all, two terms!). The style is quite different from earlier posts. The earlier ones derived from my own books and writing; this one arose from a discussion. It contains many quotations from Śaṅkara in support, together with carefully constructed reasoning.

Mokṣa is not produced by any action (as argued in depth by Sureśvara in his Naiṣkarmya Siddhi chapter 1); it is nitya-siddha – already accomplished – and the knowledge gained from scriptures and teacher reveals this fact.

There is much confusion amongst seekers regarding these terms, which are often used interchangeably, or even in the wrong manner. This is because the same confusion exists amongst many writers and teachers. I want to clarify the correct usage of them with support from Śaṅkara’s own writing.

“But This is absolute, immutably eternal, all-pervasive like space, free from all modifications, eternally content, partless, self-luminous by nature, wherein dharma and adharma, along with their result, can never come even proximate all through the entire three periods of time. This is that unembodied state that is termed ‘Liberation’ comprehended from Scriptural passages, such as Ka. Up. 1.2.14.” (BSB 1.1.4 Sankaranarayanan translation)

Self-realization (another term for ‘enlightenment’) follows automatically on the gaining of Self-knowledge. Śaṅkara says: “Nor (can the gods check the result of knowledge), for the realization of Brahman, which is the result, consists in the mere cessation of ignorance.” (Br. Up. Bh. 1.4.10 Madhavananda translation)

The Self is already free – perceived bondage is due to lack of Self-knowledge – once this is gained, liberation is recognized (not ‘gained’).

Definitions

First of all, here are the simple dictionary definitions (Chambers). Note that I am not in any way intending to use the English dictionary as some sort of pramāṇa for these terms. It is simply that these are the understandings that English-speaking seekers will begin with. (And, I will argue, they are perfectly reasonable for this purpose.) It should also be noticed that there is not actually a commonly-used Sanskrit term for ‘enlightenment’ so that some initial definition is needed.

Enlighten:

1. To impart knowledge or information to

2. To make aware or uplift by knowledge or religion
3. To free from prejudice and superstition
4. To lighten or shed light on (archaic)
5. To give light to (archaic)
6. To make clear to the mind (obsolete)

Liberate:

1. To set free
2. To release from restraint, confinement or slavery
3. To steal or appropriate (facetious)
4. To give off (chem)

These are the sense in which these terms are conventionally used and their usage in Advaita is not essentially any different. I suggest simply adapting them as follows:

Enlightenment:

1. Gaining the knowledge (and permanent conviction) of the truths pronounced by the Vedas – ‘I am Brahman’ etc.
2. For this, the recommendation of scriptures and Śaṅkara is to practice sādhana catuṣṭaya sampatti and seek the guidance of a qualified teacher. The former prepares the mind and the latter, through śravaṇa and manana, brings Self-knowledge.
3. Effectively, terms such as ‘ātmā jñāna’ refer to Self-knowledge, the gaining of which is ‘enlightenment’.

Liberation:

1. Being ‘free from rebirth’ (saṃsāra).
2. Being ‘released from’ the trials and tribulations of life.
3. Effectively, the terms ‘mokṣa’ or ‘mukti’ refer to the realization that we are already free and always have been.

In more detail, we can say that:

Enlightenment:

1. Relates to the jīva and only occurs at the level of the intellect.
2. Is an ‘event’ in the mind; an intellectual conviction of the truth of Advaita. The final ‘thought’ that triggers this is called akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti. While the Atman could be considered to be already enlightened (although that has no real meaning), the jīva must acquire the knowledge of the Self. (This is often referred to as ‘destroying ignorance’ – but that is another misconception requiring long explanations!) In Br. Up. Bh. 1.4.7, Śaṅkara says: “In the Upaniṣads, nothing is spoken of as a means to the attainment of the highest end of man except the knowledge of the identity of the self and Brahman.” (Madhavananda translation)
3. Śaṅkara explicitly acknowledges the mind as the ‘instrument’ (kāraṇa) for gaining Self-knowledge, not as a ‘portal (dvāra). See Br. Up. Bh. 4.4.19 quote below.
4. The build-up of knowledge will usually be gradual as teaching progresses, with earlier simplistic explanations being replaced by more sophisticated ones (adhyāropa-apavāda). But the final step ‘off the ladder onto the roof’ is irrevocable. I.e. ‘enlightenment’ itself is decisive and irreversible. It is a permanent shift in understanding. (Note that ‘enlightenment’, jñāna – has to be differentiated from jīvanmukti. The latter is dependent upon removal of pratibandha-s, as has been exhaustively explained in the 10-part extract from my book ‘Confusions in Advaita: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’.) 
5. Its occurrence brings the realization that we are already free; there is no saṃsāra; the presumed bondage was not real; we are Brahman.
6. It is ‘epistemic’, not ‘ontological’. (Note that these are Western, philosophical terms that were not explicitly used by Śaṅkara. Nevertheless, the fact that ātman = brahman, ‘nitya-siddha’ is an ontological statement, while the gaining of Self-knowledge (or ‘removal of ignorance’), ‘avidyā nivṛtti’, is an epistemic event.)

Liberation:

1. Freedom from rebirth (and first birth!).
2. Is the very nature of the ātman; the ontological reality. Ātman = Brahman.
3. Liberation does not ‘occur’; It is already an accomplished fact and was ever so (nitya siddha). It is not the production of a new state.
4. If it were the result of action, it would be non-eternal. Since it is eternal, it cannot be produced.
5. We cannot and need not do anything to obtain this. It is lack of Self-knowledge that prevents us from realizing it to be the case.
6. No one was ever ‘bound’ in reality, so no one is being ‘freed’.
7. No one was ever ‘separate from’ Brahman so there is no ‘attaining’ or ‘merging’.

Clearly, the important element of this from a ‘pāramārthika’ viewpoint is liberation. The Sanskrit term for this is mokṣa (or sometimes mukti). For mokṣa, Monier-Williams gives the translation: “emancipation, liberation; release from worldly existence or transmigration; death”. For mukti, MW gives: “Setting or becoming free, release, liberation; final liberation or emancipation”.

From the jīva’s (vyāvahārika) standpoint, the practically important element is gaining the knowledge about this. The Sanskrit term for that is jñāna, and someone who has that knowledge is called a jñānī. MW Gives the translation: “knowing, becoming acquainted with, knowledge, especially the higher knowledge.

The distinction can be clarified by saying that liberation is an ontological definition – it is what you are, the eternal, changeless, non-dual reality; you do not need to get it. On the other hand, enlightenment is an epistemological definition – it is the realization of your true nature. As such, it is an event in time and this is what seekers are seeking.

Another way of looking at it is that enlightenment does not make us free, since we are always free. Rather it frees us from the notion that we need to be liberated.

(Note that it does need to be remembered that the jñānī, along with everyone else, has to work through prārabdha karma. Even though he now knows that he is free, the effective liberation, from the vyāvahārika standpoint, comes with the death of the body-mind. And it should be remembered that Advaita differentiates jīvanmukti and videhamukti. The former relates to the jñānī who still has pratibandha-s. The latter refers to the jñānī’s exhaustion of prārabdha karma, when the body-mind ‘falls away’.)

Initially, all seekers are ajñānī-s. They do not know that they are Brahman. Accordingly, they must acquire this Self-knowledge from a qualified teaching source and eliminate all doubts. Once this happens, the ‘catastrophic’ effect of the final teaching brings Self-knowledge.

The net effect of all this is that the two terms cannot be interchanged. We can say that gaining Self-knowledge brings the realization that we are already free. But you cannot say that liberation brings Self-knowledge. (Since we are all free, we would have Self-knowledge already if that were true.) The ‘bottom line’ if you like, that clarifies the difference between these terms, is that ‘liberation’ is not the production of freedom (whatever that could mean), while ‘enlightenment’ is the gaining of the Self-knowledge that reveals that we are always free. This is what is taught by Śaṅkara.

It can certainly be argued that the word mokṣa is used by many authoritative sources in the sense of gaining enlightenment. Whilst it is unfortunate that this inevitably causes confusion for many, the reason is that this meaning does convey the sense that it is the gaining of Self-knowledge that brings about the realization that we are free. The distinction can be clarified as being that mokṣa in its principal, pāramārthika sense is ontological – relating to the reality of our existence. In its secondary, vyāvahārika sense as the acquiring of Self-knowledge, it is pedagogical, being a key element of the traditional teaching of Advaita. The distinction is contextual in any particular writing.

*** End of Part 1 ***