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 were derived from my books and earlier writing; I wrote this following a recent 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:
- To impart knowledge or information to
- To make aware or uplift by knowledge or religion
- To free from prejudice and superstition
- To lighten or shed light on (archaic)
- To give light to (archaic)
- To make clear to the mind (obsolete)
Liberate:
- To set free
- To release from restraint, confinement or slavery
- To steal or appropriate (facetious)
- 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:
- Gaining the knowledge (and permanent conviction) of the truths pronounced by the Vedas – ‘I am Brahman’ etc.
- 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.
- Effectively, terms such as ‘ātmā jñāna’ refer to Self-knowledge, the gaining of which is ‘enlightenment’.
Liberation:
- Being ‘free from rebirth’ (saṃsāra).
- Being ‘released from’ the trials and tribulations of life.
- 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:
- Relates to the jīva and only occurs at the level of the intellect.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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’.)
- Its occurrence brings the realization that we are already free; there is no saṃsāra; the presumed bondage was not real; we are Brahman.
- 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:
- Freedom from rebirth (and first birth!).
- Is the very nature of the ātman; the ontological reality. Ātman = Brahman.
- 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.
- If it were the result of action, it would be non-eternal. Since it is eternal, it cannot be produced.
- 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.
- No one was ever ‘bound’ in reality, so no one is being ‘freed’.
- 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.
*** Go to Part 2 (Conclusion) ***
Dear Dennis,
Thanks. It is a very useful post for an aspirant like me.
Though Enlightenenment and Liberation are two different Vedantic terms, they are closely related and therefore there is confusion. It is important is to know what and where the confusion is? The following two highlight the confusion and also remove them.
1 Liberation is an ontological (parmarthika) statement, and enlightenment is an epistemic (vyavaharika) event.
2 Enlightenment does not make us free, since we are always free. Rather it frees us from the notion that we need to be liberated.
Best wishes,
Bimal
Dennis,
In your quote from BSB1.1.4, you note “the unembodied state that is termed Liberation”. So self-knowledge leads to the unembodied state – as Brhad states, “like a snake shedding its skin”. Therefore it is something other than simply gaining knowledge that ‘I am Brahman’, as you have equated enlightenment to, as different from liberation. Your quote itself betrays this.
Furthermore, elsewhere in BSB1.1.4:
– “happiness and sorrow do not touch one who is definitely bodiless . . . emancipation which is the same as bodilessness”
– “For one who has realised the state of unity of the Self and Brahman, it cannot be proved that his mundane life continues just as before, for this contradicts the knowledge of unity . . . “
– “Thus since embodiedness is the result of a false perception, it is established that the enlightened man has no embodiedness even while living”
– “Hence a man who has realised his own identity with Brahman cannot continue to have the worldly state just as before, whereas the man who continues to have the world state just as before, has not realised his identity with Brahman.”
Sw Gambhirananda has an intriguing footnote to BSB1.1.4 (p32):
“The mentation about Brahman destroys the ignorance about and the ignorance subsisting on it. But the apprehending Consciousness cannot reveal Brahman, the mentation being included in ignorance itself, as the latter’s product, so that it gets destroyed along with that ignorance, and can have o further action”
best
venkat
Hi Venkat,
Thanks for that question – it is an aspect that I hadn’t specifically addressed here. But it is part of the same fundamental problem, namely the paradox of the teaching of Advaita that attempts to convey the non-dual nature of reality via language, which is necessarily dualistic.
This particular problem revolves around the interpretation of the word ‘aśarīratvaṃ’ – not having a body. In BSB 1.1.4, Śaṅkara is responding to the view that the “unembodied state” occurs only after death. He argues instead that bodilessness is the natural state of the Self and that the appearance of embodiment arises only through ignorance. This is in the context of refuting the notion that some sort of ‘action’ could bring about liberation. We do not have to ‘do’ anything.
The point is that the Self never has a body to begin with, so the talk about ‘unembodiedness’ is a confusion of Self and jīva. The jñānī has realized that he is the Self and not the body-mind. Śaṅkara refers to Chāndogya Up. 8.12.1: “Indeed, being free from embodiment, pleasure and pain do not touch him.”
We just have to differentiate between the physical body itself (which is determined by karma) and identification with it. When the identification ceases (on gaining enlightenment), the jñānī is said to be ‘aśarīra’ but literal ‘dropping of the body’ still only takes place at its death.
The simple rationale is that liberation does not mean losing the body. Mokṣa is ‘nitya siddha’. The Self is never embodied. It is knowledge that removes this misunderstanding.
I effectively addressed the topic in ‘Confusions Vol. 1: Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’ under ‘Nature of Enlightenment’- ‘Recognizing a Realized Person’, and I quoted from Geoge Thibaud’s translation of BSB 1.3.19: “. Thus the embodiedness and the non-embodiedness of the Self are due merely to discrimination and non-discrimination, in agreement with the mantra, ‘Bodiless within the bodies,’ etc. (Ka. Up. 1.2.22), and the statement of smṛti as to the non-difference between embodiedness and non-embodiedness ‘Though dwelling in the body, O Kaunteya, it does not act and is not tainted’ (bhagavad gītā 13.31).”
The bottom line is effectively that (thinking that you are) ‘embodied’ = ignorance; knowledge removes that ignorance; therefore (realizing that you are) ‘unembodied’ = ‘knowledge’.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dennis
The thrust of your writings has been that enlightenment is simply the knowledge that ‘I am the Self, not the body-mind’, and life goes on as normal.
I think for the first time I have seen you write ‘identification with the body-mind ceases’.
So when this identification ceases, presumably there is no direction, no volition in one’s actions; and therefore those actions are minimal?
I would have said that ‘gaining the knowledge that one is Brahman and not the body-mind’ is the same as ‘ceasing to identify with the body-mind’. Just different words.
When this knowledge has been gained, this is ‘j~nAna’. Traditionally, there is still likely to be ingrained habits etc. in the mind and, as Shankara and shruti explains, the body-mind continues to operate, as in the metaphorical potter’s wheel.
If the knowledge gets so ‘assimilated’ that desires etc. genuinely cease, that is jIvanmukti. Actions, motivated or otherwise, continue until the body drops. But that is another topic not relevant to this discussion.
Best wishes,
Dennis
“I would have said that ‘gaining the knowledge that one is Brahman and not the body-mind’ is the same as ‘ceasing to identify with the body-mind’. Just different words.”
Not really Dennis. The former is a conceptual knowledge in the mind. Whereas ‘umembodied state” implies something different, and, as Sw G points out, the enlightenment mentation itself is destroyed”, such that as Sankara says, a realised man can no longer continue in his worldly state as before.
Overall therefore, I think this distinction that you are drawing between enlightenment and liberation has no basis in Sankara. It tacitly assumes a continuing duality when Sankara adamantly teaches there is none.
Dear Venkat,
I don’t think you are introducing anything new here and I have already covered these issues.
Śaṅkara makes it clear (in Br. Up. Bh. 4.4.6) that the world continues for the jñānī when he uses the ‘potter’s wheel’ metaphor to explain that prārabdha karma continues until the body drops. This is the differentiation between jñāna and jīvanmukti that I already mentioned. And he continues, in 4.4.7: “It is practically implied that desires concerning things other than the Self fall under the category of ignorance, and are but forms of death. Therefore, on the cessation of death, the man of realization becomes immortal. And attains Brahman, the identity with Brahman, i.e. liberation, living in this very body.” (‘Attain’ is of course colloquial, since he is already Brahman.)
The notion of being embodied is identification – ‘I am the body’ – resulting from lack of Self-knowledge. Once that knowledge is gained, the false identification ceases but this does not mean the body disappears.
Furthermore, the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’ derived from the teaching is not mere ‘intellectual’ knowledge; it is aparokṣa jñāna, removing the ‘ignorance’. This is what Gambhirananda’s footnote was referring to.
Best wishes,
Dennis
The issue is whether liberation and enlightenment are different. Consider the following.
1 Liberation is eternal. Shankara says so (Anuvaka 8(5) of Anandvalli, Tai Up) in the answer to an objection:
“Objection: The knowledge of Brahman, as depending on such means as rites etc. enjoined earlier, is taught as a means for the attainment of the highest.
Answer: No, for this was refuted earlier by saying, `Since liberation is eternal,’ etc.’ * And the text, `Having created that, He entered into that very thing’ (Il.vi), shows that the Self, immanent in creation, is identical with That (Supreme Brahman). And this follows also from the logic of attaining the state of fearlessness. ”
* Brahman is identical with liberation, and as such, It is not to be attained. But we can know Brahman in the sense that our ignorance about It is removed.” [Swami Gambhirananda. Eight Upanishads, with the Commentary of Sankaracarya, Vol 1
2 On the other hand, enlightenment, i.e., Self-knowledge is mithya.
Bimal
Dennis,
Thanks for highlighting BU4.4.6. It reads:
“He to whom all objects of desire, being but the Self, are already attained, is alone free from desires, is without desires, and does not desire any more ; hence he attains liberation.”
-> when he is entirely desireless, he attains liberation
“Rather this man of realisation is Brahman in this very life, although he seems to have a body. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman. Because he has no desires that cause the limitation of non-Brahmanhood, therefore ‘being but Brahman he is merged in Brahman’ in this very life, not after the body falls.”
-> note he is “merged in Brahman in this very life NOT after the body falls”.
And BU4.4.7:
“But how is it that when the organs have been merged, and the body also has dissolved in its cause, the liberated sage lives in the body identified with all, but does not revert to his former embodied existence, which is subject to transmigration? The answer is being given: Here is an illustration in point. Just as in the world the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off by it as no more being a part of itself, and lies in the ant-
hill, or any other nest of a snake, so does this body, discarded as non-self by the liberated man, who corresponds to the snake, lie like dead. Then the other, the ‘liberated man identified with all-who corresponds to the snake-although he resides just there like the snake, becomes disembodied, and is no more connected with the body.”
So whether or not the world-body disappears for a liberated sage, there is no longer an ego-mind there that identifies with the body, therefore no desires, and therefore no actions. He lives by what comes to him by chance. And the prarabdha karma is simply what comes to him by chance, or by his past actions. There is no desire to initiate an action.
Dear Venkat,
I don’t think we are actually disagreeing on anything essential here. But I think you are insisting upon reading the translations literally, rather than in the light of the overall teaching and the many other things that Śaṅkara says.
It is natural for habitual tendencies to continue for some time after gaining if Self-knowledge and nididhyāsana is prescribed for assimilation. Once that occurs, the jñānī becomes a jīvanmukta and, as you point out, is colloquially ‘merged in Brahman’. (As I have said, this has to be colloquial because nothing can be merged in Brahman when there is only Brahman.) When prārabdha karma is exhausted, nothing remains to give rise to another embodiment because no new saṃskāra is created following enlightenment.
The body-mind continues to function due to prārabdha karma. Otherwise ordinary activities such as speaking or eating would be impossible. Agreed there are no further desires, or at least no regrets or other negative reactions if a desire arises out of habit and is not satisfied.
Given these explanations, the teaching remains entirely coherent and reasonable.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dennis when you say “not mere intellectual knowledge, but removing the ignorance” in explanation of Sw G’s “enlightenment mentation itself is destroyed” – what do you mean by that?