33 thoughts on “Enlightenment and Liberation (Part 2)”

1. Dennis

   I am bringing forward my question from your last post here, and expanding on it.

   When you say in explanation of Sw G’s footnote “enlightenment mentation itself is destroyed” that “not mere intellectual knowledge, but removing the ignorance” – what do you mean by that ‘removing ignorance’?

   Sankara says that “the limiting adjunct of the body and organs created by ignorance (BU2.5.14) -> ie that the body is a projection of ignorance => removal of ignorance means no limiting adjuncts.

   You cited a compelling passage in BU 3.9.28, where it says that “absolute separation from the body is liberation . . . hence there will be no knowledge, there being no body or organs”.

   You take this to mean that there can only be liberation on death, from the vyavaharika standpoint. However, you have not understood the context of Sankara’s bhasya here.

   This part of Sankara’s bhasya is responding to the question whether a knower of Brahman cognises bliss. His answer is saying that a knower of Brahman who has “absolute separation from the body” – ie disembodiedness – can have no knowledge.

   This makes sense when you understand that Sankara defined ignorance as creating the limiting adjuncts. So liberation = removal of ignorance => no limiting adjuncts, i.e. diembodiedness or “absolute separation from the body”.

   Best wishes,
   venkat

2. Dear Venkat,

   You ask “what do you mean by that ‘removing ignorance’?” I do try to avoid using this phrasing but I slip up occasionally because it is such a normal way of speaking. ‘Confusions Vol. 2’ specifically addresses all topics relating to ‘ignorance’ and one if the main things I conclude is that there is not any actual ‘thing’ called ‘ignorance’. I believe that the correct interpretation of the teaching of Advaita according to Śaṅkara is that it is the gaining of Self-knowledge that brings enlightenment (and thus the realization that we are always free).

   But that is very definitely another topic and I am not going to embark upon it here. You can always buy the book. But, as regards your specific question, when we gain the knowledge that we are not the body-mind, it stands to reason that the body-mind is no longer going to be a major problem for us. (Ingrained habits etc. may take time to fall away. If they do, the jñānī becomes a jīvanmukta; if not videhamukti takes place at death.)

   The statement that the body is ‘created by ignorance’ (Br. Up. Bh. 2.5.15, not 14) is only figurative, in the sense of adhyāsa (i.e. Chāndogya’s vācārambhaṇa śruti). When we know that everything is Brahman, we cease to think that the body and world are separate entities. But we still perceive them.

   Your analysis still appears not to be differentiating the terms. ‘Liberation’ is not something that is produced. It is the ever-accomplished nature of the Self, which is realized on the acquisition of Self-knowledge. ‘Enlightenment’ does not remove the body-mind; it reveals the truth that we have never been a body-mind. Pratibandha-s are not automatically removed – see the ten-part posts on this topic.

   The Self is never truly associated with the body. The post-Śaṅkara pratibimba or avaccheda theories attempt to give some rationalization for this. But the notional ‘disembodiment’ does not occur until death. The potter’s wheel metaphor to explain prārabdha karma has already been referenced (Br. Up. Bh, 4.4.6). Or there is the ‘arrow shot from a bow’ metaphor, if you prefer.

   Best wishes,
   Dennis

3. Hi Dennis

   I am disagreeing with your interpretation that on ‘enlightenment’ knowledge is gained but that liberation only occurs on death.

   Sankara says ignorance = body/mind; implying therefore liberation is such that there is no further projection.

   Your strategy seems to be to pick and choose what is figurative and what is literal, in order to fit your interpretation. Confirmation bias.

   It is odd that Sankara as a teacher chooses to write rarefied debates between a disputant and advaitin, and yet so often leaves an ambiguous answer in the advaitin’s mouth which could be taken literally or figuratively.

   So you say “the body created by ignorance” is figurative and yet disregard the frequency and different contexts in which Sankara writes this. As in the BU quote that you incorrectly cited:
   “absolute separation from the body is liberation . . . hence there will be no knowledge, there being no body or organs”.

   Most of our to-ing and fro-ing on these posts, boils down to a figurative vs literal interpretation of what Sankara has said in so many different places. You are of course entitled to hold any interpretation (figurative vs literal) that you wish! However we are unlikely to achieve any agreement, or convince the other, given our different perspectives.

   Best
   venkat

4. Dear Venkat,

   I have never said that liberation only occurs at death. On the contrary, I have said a number of times that it is nitya siddha – has always been the case and will be eternally. And here is another way of explaining why enlightenment and liberation have to be different (although it is a corollary to the nitya siddha argument):

   Enlightenment (the arising of knowledge) clearly has a beginning in time. Liberation, if it were identical with that event, would also have to begin in time. But Śaṅkara repeatedly insists that mokṣa is nitya-siddha (e.g. BSB 1.1.4 discussed earlier). Therefore, liberation cannot be identical with the temporal arising of knowledge; rather, it is what that knowledge reveals.

   It is certainly true that many (most? all?) statements are non-literal. Since reality is non-dual and language is intrinsically dualistic, this is inevitable. It also explains the necessity for adhyāropa-apavāda as the teaching method.

   This is a case in point. Śaṅkara does indeed state that the Self is never embodied. He also says that the body-mind continues to death as a result of prārabdha karma. Both cannot be a literal description of reality. At least one must be understood in a pedagogical sense. The scriptures and Śaṅkara explain that, although the Self is never truly connected with the body, it is taken to be so due to adhyāsa.

   Statements such as “the body is created by ignorance” cannot be literal. In reality, there is no second entity apart from Brahman, so there can be no literal production of a body by ignorance. It has to be explanatory, referring to a misidentification. If it were literally the case that the body is destroyed upon ‘removing the ignorance’, this would contradict Śaṅkara’s teaching about prārabdha.

   So the distinction between literal and figurative here is not arbitrary; it is required in order to preserve consistency in Śaṅkara’s teaching. A purely literal understanding of the bhāṣya-s, without taking account of his method of teaching, can easily lead to confusion.

   Best wishes,
   Dennis

5. Hi Dennis

   I can only re-iterate the quote that you misconstrued by 180 degrees saying “Regarding liberation, from the vyāvahārika standpoint this can only happen on death of the body-mind”.

   Sankara:
   “There can be no knowledge in the state of liberation where body, sense and motor organs as well as the mind do not remain to make it possible. Liberation means separation from the body, absolute separation. And where the body is not, the organs, external or internal, too are not. For the support of these is the body. So knowledge is impossible in the state of liberation. If knowledge could be possible without the body and the organs, there would be no need to have them. Besides, there can be no knowledge in the state in which everything has become one.”

   Refer also to Ramesam’s re-post of Sri P. Neti.

6. Dear Venkat,

   I have re-read that quotation several times and my understanding of it precisely matches what I said. It is you who is appears to be understsanding the exact opposite!

   Surely, body, sense organs and mind ‘not remaining’ means ‘dead’? And, without a mind, no knowledge is possible. ‘Liberation means absolute separation from the body’ equates to death in my understanding.

   Every aspect of this quote corresponds to what I have been saying. Please explain in simple terms how they are ‘opposite’.

   Best wishes,
   Dennis

7. Dennis

   BrUp 3.8.28 is dealing with death and re-birth, to ensure that s/he reaps the fruits of past actions.

   It then commences on a discussion of bliss, as an epithet of Brahman, and whether such bliss can be cognised. And Sankara points out contradictory texts such as
   “He knew bliss to be Brahman”
   versus
   “But when to a knower of Brahman everything has become the Self . . then what should one know and through what?” and “Being fully embraced by the Supreme Self, he does not know anything outside of himself”.

   He is unequivocally referring to a knower of Brahman – a jnani / jivanmukta, NOT one who has died. Sankara writes: “Therefore on account of the contradictory Sruti texts, a discussion is necessary”
   i.e. The Sruti seem to be contradictory saying both that a jnani “knows the bliss of Brahman” and elsewhere saying that he does not know anything else.

   He then begins a dialogue, with a prima facie view: “There is joy to be cognised in liberation, for the Srutis mention bliss with regard “Laughing, playing and enjoying, etc”

   After a few more tentative positions, he presents a tentative answer:
   “One directly knows the self to be blissful, as when one feels, ‘I am happy.’ So the agreement in question with perception etc. is quite clear. Therefore Brahman, which is bliss, being knowledge as well, knows Itself. Thus would the Sruti texts cited above, viz. ‘Laughing (or eating), playing, enjoying,’ etc., which prove the existence of bliss in the Self be found to be consistent”

   Again it is incontrovertible that this tentative answer is talking about a liberated man whilst alive, seemingly laughing, playing etc, NOT after death.

   Sankara then presents the Advaitin’s reply:
   “You are wrong, for there can be no knowledge in the absence of the body and organs. Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will have no support.”

   It would be illogical for Sankara to suddenly change the subject and talk about a dead person. He is saying here that liberation is equivalent to absolute separation from the body; what he refers to as disembodiment elsewhere. It is the same point.

   Later in his reply he writes:
   “Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank, he does not retain a separate existence so as to know the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liberated man knows the blissful Self is meaningless.”
   Note he is comparing a liberated (living) man to water thrown into a tank.

   CONCLUSION

   I have established that the whole context of this passage from which you selectively quoted is debating whether a liberated (living, not dead) man experiences the bliss of Brahman And Sankara’s answer is “no” because in liberation there is absolute separation from the body, and hence no knowledge (experience of bliss).

   Every aspect of your interpretation of that quote is 180 degrees wrong. You have not read the context, and just overlaid your confirmation bias.

8. Dear Venkat,

   I don’t dispute your general analysis of 3.9.28.7 (not 3.8.28). But you are interpreting words in an impossibly literal sense. You are missing the distinction between actually ‘losing’ the body somehow and no longer identifying with it. The jīva does not drop dead the instant he gains Self-knowledge! If that were the case, it would invalidate Śaṅkara’s teaching on prārabdha.

   In 3.9.28, Śaṅkara is explaining how it can be that the jñānī ‘knows bliss’ and yet ‘nothing is known’. The resolution is that in the non-dual reality there is no knower-known distinction; therefore, no ‘knowledge’ in that sense.

   Everything cannot ‘become’ the Self because, in reality, it always IS the Self (sarvam khalvidam brahma). Such usage has to be figurative. What distinguishes a jñānī is that he now knows this to be true. His intellect has acquired this knowledge. Nothing has changed in reality. If it changed, it could not have been Brahman because Brahman is nirvikāra.

   And, you are right, Śaṅkara is referring to a living jñānī, not a dead one! Liberation is not something newly produced; it is the ever-accomplished nature of the Self that is recognized as a result of the removal of the prior ignorance. Empirically, knowledge and experience continue through the mind. The non-dual reality obviously remains the same. His prārabdha karma has to continue until expiry, as per potter’s wheel. ‘Enlightenment’ entails the realization that he is, in reality, already ‘liberated’. He does not have to wait until death for this.

   When Śaṅkara speaks here about ‘unembodiedness’, he is referring to the pāramārthika reality, not to the empirically experienced situation. “Absolute separation from the body” cannot be a physical fact, nor an event in time, because Śaṅkara clearly states (in Br. Up. Bh. 4.4.6) that the body continues after gaining Self-knowledge because of prārabdha karma. “Separation” therefore refers to the absence of identification (adhyāsa), not the physical destruction of the body.

   If one insists on taking all such statements literally, without regard to Śaṅkara’s method of teaching and the distinction between empirical and absolute standpoints, then contradictions inevitably arise—for example between “absolute separation from the body” and the continued existence of the body due to prārabdha.

   As regards your complaint that I have a ‘confirmation bias’ when examining quotations – guilty as charged! My bias is that I do not accept any explanation that contradicts the understanding of Advaita that I have acquired over the past 30 years of studying and writing books on the subject. And this is in accord with Śaṅkara’s own statements regarding not immediately accepting anything in śruti that contradicts reason and experience.

   Best wishes,
   Dennis

9. Dennis

   You initially categorically state that your quote confirms that:
   “‘Liberation means absolute separation from the body’ equates to death in my understanding”.

   There is nothing that is unclear in that quote from Sankara which you thought proved you case decisively – but you got the absolute wrong of the stick. As is the same with so many quotes, where you don’t read the context

   And then having been proved wrong, you lived up/down to my expectations by switching to figurative vs literal and vyavaharika vs paramarthika fall-back positions.

   TBH I didn’t realise your “Confusions” was a confessional!

   Best,
   venkat

10. Dear Venkat,

    I think we are now moving away from the actual point under discussion, which is really quite simple.

    Śaṅkara states that:

    a) Liberation is described as aśarīratva (unembodiedness).
    b) The body continues to exist owing to prārabdha karma.

    You cannot interpret them both literally without logical contradiction. If the ‘unembodiedness’ is literal. why does the jīva not drop dead on ‘attaining liberation’?

    Also, I am not ‘retreating’ to figurative interpretations – to interpret statements that are contrary to reason in this manner is part of the traditional (adhyāropa-apavāda) teaching methodology. My understanding is that ‘unembodiedness’ should be understood as the absence of identification (adhyāsa) with the body-mind.

    If my reasoning is invalid here, please provide an alternative explanation of the apparent contradiction.

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

11. Dennis,

    Feel free to re-visit our recent email correspondence if you want a logical de-construction of your position. However, I have zero interest in spending time re-visiting discussions that end with “you are jumping from vyavaharika to paramarthika level”.

    So I will just short-circuit that here and now.

    Best
    venkat

12. Dear Venkat,

    I have spent several days now in this discussion, carefully responding to your objections to the original presentation.

    It seems to me that the issue has now been reduced to a very specific point: Śaṅkara makes statements that (on the face of it) cannot both be taken literally—namely, that liberation is “unembodiedness”, and that the body continues after the rise of knowledge due to prārabdha.

    My attempt has simply been to reconcile these without contradiction, by understanding such expressions in the light of Śaṅkara’s overall method of teaching.

    If you would prefer not to pursue that line of discussion further, I’m happy to leave it there.

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

13. Dear Venkat and Dennis,

    I find that both of you are engaging with perhaps the most significant issue in the teaching of Advaita Vedānta. If you do not mind, I would like to share a few thoughts of mine, for whatever they may be worth, on the point under discussion.

    [I have a faint recollection that Dennis once objected to equating disembodiment with liberation; I am glad to note that he does not seem to hold that reservation now.]

    Dennis writes in his comment above:

    “Śaṅkara makes statements that (on the face of it) cannot both be taken literally—namely, that liberation is ‘unembodiedness’, and that the body continues after the rise of knowledge due to prārabdha. My attempt has simply been to reconcile these without contradiction…”

    In my view, the first mistake is to assume that these two statements require reconciliation at all. Such an assumption may indicate either a lack of clarity regarding Śhaṅkara’s final teaching, or an incomplete detachment from identification with the body—an attachment that must be severed entirely.

    If one has truly attained total and absolute aśarīratva (disembodiment), both the “finite seer” and the entire ensemble of finite objects (including the body and the world) cease to appear (for him). The familiar analogy of the sun’s reflection disappearing when the water in a pool dries up may help to illustrate this.

    It is only the body that has death; the jīva, being non-different from Brahman (jIvo brahmaiva na aparah), does not die. Therefore, the question raised earlier by Dennis — “Why does the jīva not drop dead upon attaining liberation?”—does not, in fact, arise. (The reflected Sun in the pool joined back the original bimba, as the metaphor goes).

    From the standpoint of the Ātman (if such a standpoint may even be meaningfully posited), no other entity—body or world—exists alongside it. Bodies and the world continue to appear only for those who remain within the ‘imagined’ dualistic framework. The question then arises: how does such a body, with no one claiming ownership of it, continue to live out itsbalance of apparent lifespan?

    It is the sādhana-prasthāna that provides provisional answers to such questions, purely for pedagogical purposes. I have cited a few illustrative examples in the latter part of my post here:
    (https://www.advaita-vision.org/four-verses-from-bhagavad-gita/)

    For more comprehensive explanations, one may consult Śaṅkara’s bhASya at the following verses of the Bhagavad Gītā:
    2.21, 4.22, 5.13, 13.31, 18.48, among others.

    regards,

    P.S. : I shall separately provide some relevant Shankara quotes on this subject.

    • Dear Ramesam

      My position has consistently been that the Self is ever free (nitya-siddha), and that what is called ‘enlightenment’ is the arising of Self-knowledge in the intellect. I would be interested to see any statement of mine that equates liberation with a literal state of disembodiment.

      The issue in the discussion with Venkat is how to understand Śaṅkara’s use of terms such as aśarīratva (“unembodiedness”), alongside his equally clear teaching that the body-mind continues after the rise of knowledge due to prārabdha karma.

      If ‘absolute disembodiment’ is taken as meaning that no body or world appears at all for the jñānī, then it becomes difficult to account for Śaṅkara’s repeated discussions of the ongoing empirical life of the knower—his experience, conduct, and the exhaustion of prārabdha.

      For this reason, I take such expressions to refer not to the literal disappearance of the body, but to the absence of identification with it (adhyāsa). In other words, the body continues to appear and function, but is no longer taken to be the Self.

      As regards the jīva, I would prefer to say (in line with Śaṅkara) that it is the Self as conditioned by the intellect (upādhi). From the standpoint of the Self, there is of course no individuality at all; but from the empirical standpoint, the functioning of the mind and body continues.

      As for references, I agree they can be useful—but in a discussion such as this, it is perhaps more helpful to state explicitly how they resolve the issue at hand. As an example, I would cite Bhagavad Gīta 5.8-9

      naiva kiñcitkaromīti yukto manyeta tattvavit |
      paśyañśṛṇvanspṛśañjighrannaśnangacchansvapañśvasan ||
      pralapanvisṛjangṛhṇannunmiśhannimiśhannapi |
      indriyāṇīndriyārtheśhu vartanta iti dhārayan ||

      Settled in the Self, the knower of truth should think, in truth I do nothing
      at all. Though seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping,
      breathing, speaking, letting go, seizing, opening and closing the eyes,
      being convinced it is only the senses moving amongst the sense objects.

      If the knower of truth is still doing all these things, I suggest he still has a body (as well as sense objects).

      Best wishes,
      Dennis

14. Dear Ramesam,

    Thanks for taking the time to write this poset. I think you captured it well, as did your link to a prior post.

    I’ll also re-recommend your post of Sri P Neti:

    https://www.advaita-vision.org/imaginary-moksha-for-imagined-bandha-shri-p-neti-3-3/

    Best wishes,
    venkat

15. Dear Venkat,

    You are very right in calling back our attention to the Post of Shri P. Neti Ji, “Imaginary ‘mokSha’ for Imagined ‘bandha’” which is highly relevant to the discussion.
    Thank you very much.

    Shri Neti Ji’s response to the Questions raised by the Interlocutor in Part 2 and 3 explain clearly how futile an exercise it would be to seek reconciliation of the statements made by Shankara.

    Elsewhere, Shri Neti ji observes:

    “shruti is pramANa for ‘negating the perception’.
    That is the key and that is exactly what we are pointing to when we quote śruti to say that jñāni does not see the world – we are pointing to śruti’s pramANatva in removing a misconception that “there is / there could be seeing in Brahman.”

    To subscribe to the ideas that “there is seeing”, “I am seer”, “I see an object”, “there is object” is what ignorance is all about. Śruti is a pramANa to remove that ignorance – shruti’s pramANatva lies in negation alone, but never in a positive description of Brahman.

    Here one may ask, what about those śruti and smṛti vakyas which appear to be positively describing about jñāni’s seeing / modus operandi?

    If there is any positive description anywhere with regard to jnani’s seeing or jnani’s modus operandi then it is simply adhyAropa! Even an adhyAropa must also be read / interpreted in an apavAda pradhAna way. Thus, only when entire śruti is applied or interpreted in a via negativa way, it holds the pramANatva i.e. it suits to be a pramANa to remove ignorance – śruti / sastra is apavAda pradhAna!”

    Shri Hishi Ryo Ji in a comment at an FB group observed (based on his studies of Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swami Ji’s works) as folows:

    “Does the mukta/jnani see the world?
    This question itself is mithyA pratyaya (a wrong idea).
    Why?

    Both *a world* AND and a *jNAnI* CANNOT co-exist, in the same way as AtmA/Brahman AND the *world* cannot co-exist (no matter how lovely that might sound for some).

    Whoever considers himself as *jNAnI* and says: “I see a world as jNAnI”, he or she IS NOT a jNAnI* according to Adi Shankara. In the vision of Advaita, the siddhAnta says: There is ONLY AtmA/Brahman, which means, NO jNAnI, no world, and no ajNAnI too. Because AtmA eva vidyate.”

    regards,

16. Dear Ramesam,

    Thanks for this quote from SSSS – could you share the source please?

    It strikes me that the BrUp 3.9.38.7 is incredibly important because in discussing whether a jivanmukta knows the bliss of Brahman, it also allows us to draw conclusions about whether s/he can have any knowledge / experience.

    To repeat, Sankara discusses the contractions in Sruti between knowing the Bliss of Brahman, and not knowing anything else, as in ‘Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, that is the infinite’

    Sankara definitively answers this by:
    “there can be no knowledge in the absence of the body and organs. Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will have no support. Hence too there will be no knowledge, there being no body and organs.”

    He does not choose to say ‘he of course senses the world through his body and organs, but always knows that they are mithya’, or to respond vis vyavaharika vs paramarthika levels. In a clearly laid out discussion on experience vs no experience, he definitively answers the question.

    Indeed, he goes on to compare a jivanmukta, with a man under bondage who has died:
    “Even the man under bondage, when freed from relative existence, would regain his real nature (Brahman). (So the same argument would apply to him also.)
    Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank, he does not retain a separate existence so as to know the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liberated man knows the blissful Self is meaningless. If, on the other hand, the liberated man, being different from Brahman, knows the bliss of Brahman and the individual self as, ‘I am the Bliss Absolute,’ then the oneness of Brahman is contradicted, which would be against all Srutis ; and there is no third alternative.”

    Whilst Sankara is talking about the bliss of Brahman, he does not choose to say that we at the empirical level just cannot know Brahman. Rather the says that for a jivanmukta who has merged with Brahman, then any other experience would contradict the “oneness of Brahman”.

    Best wishes,
    venkat

    • Dear Venkat,

      I could finally, after about a week of effort, get in touch with the Poster Shri Hihi Ryo Ji from whose writings at an FB Group, I excerpted the quote attributed to SSSS Ji.
      I found that it was not a quote from SSSS but that is Shri Hishi Ryo’s finding from a study of SSSS’s works.

      I have corrected my attribution accordingly.

      regards,

17. Dear Both,

    Can you please start new threads if you want to open out to new topics or revisit old ones.

    Venkat and I had narrowed this thread down to a very specific point in an effort to reach concensus and teminate the endless discussions.

    Śaṅkara makes statements that
    a) liberation is “unembodiedness”, and that
    b) the body continues after the rise of knowledge due to prārabdha.

    I am still waiting for Venkat’s explanation as to how these can be reconciled without labelling the ‘unmbodiedness’ as figurative.

    I have no intention of engaging with the other aspects in this thread. I sugggest, for example, reposting the P. Neti article, Ramesam, and transferring your comment to that thread.

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

18. Actually Dennis I think you should start a new thread on prarabdha karma.

    This entire conversation has been about whether Sankara held that there can be knowledge when there is absolute separation from the body / organs. Ramesam and I are continuing in that view.

    You have decided to narrow the discussion, and change the topic, to prarabdha karma – so I suggest you start a new threat.

    Cheers

    venkat

19. Actually, Venkat, if you look at the heading of this thread, it is ‘Enlightenment and Liberation’. That has aways been the intended subject, despite attempts to change it into other favorite topics. And, as I keep reminding you, we eventually came down to a specific point of disagreement, which you are assiduously avoiding answering!

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

20. Actually Dennis your article posted a quote from Sankara that was fallaciously misrepresented by you – and you asked me to show you how it was wrong. Which I did.

    At which point you changed the subject.

    So feel free to start a new post on prarabdha.

    Regards,
    venkat

21. Hi Both Brits,

    Dennis’s post is on Enlightenment and Liberation.
    NetiJi’s post was on mukti and mokSa.
    Can somebody explain how they are unrelated?

    Secondly, Dennis suggested that I should repost Neti Ji’s article and transfer my comment to that new thread.

    My Comment was in response to and closely related to what Dennis observed in two of his own prior comments. Divorced and disconnected from those comments, it makes no sense to me to repost Neti Ji’s article and carry forward my remarks over there.

    regards,

    • Dear Ramesam,

      I am did not say that they were unrelated. In fact, I did not read it (although I presume I did whenever it was posted). My point was that the practice of referring readers to scriptural verses (or other posts) is not really acceptable. The implication is that whoever says this is signalling “end-of-discussion; I have made my points; go and read this”. And that is not really acceptable.

      One should re-quote the relevant point in THIS post (and maybe include a link to the other article if the reader wants to see its entire context) so that the reader can see immediately what point is being made.

      Hope you agree with this. It does seem perfectly reasonabe to me.

      Best wishes,
      Dennis

22. Dear Dennis,

    Our posts have been crisscrossed!
    I am fully aware of what you say and the points raised by you.
    That’s the reason I said elsewhere that I will *separately* post my 2-yr old article “Double Jeopardy” in order not to mix up things here and offer how the apparent contradiction has to be teased out.

    I want to clean up the article a bit and post it as soon as possible as a separate thread.

    regards,

23. Actually, Venkat, I think that is the third, or possibly the fourth time that you have avoided answering the key question by diverting to something else.

    You haven’t said which quotation I misrepresented. I thought it was the one that I claimed, in response to your objection, that it was figurative. This then (eventually) led to the question that I am now asking for the third or fourth time:

    Śaṅkara makes statements that
    a) liberation is “unembodiedness”, and that
    b) the body continues after the rise of knowledge due to prārabdha.

    How these can be reconciled without labelling the ‘unmbodiedness’ as figurative?

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

24. Sigh. You represented that
    “There can be no knowledge in the state of liberation where body, sense and motor organs as well as the mind do not remain to make it possible. Liberation means separation from the body, absolute separation . . .”

    was related to a jnani who had died, since how else could there be separation from the body. Which I then had to prove to you that Sankara was talking about a living jivanmukta.

25. Dear Venkat,

    I have never denied that Śaṅkara is referring to a living jīvanmukta in that passage. But that is precisely what triggered my conclusion that ‘unembodiedness’ must be figurative.

    I presume that you have read my response to Ramesam in which I quoted Bhagavad Gīta 5.8-9. That clearly states that a jñānī still has a body. For another confirmation of this from Śaṅkara, see his commentary on 5.13. Here, he says:

    “Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminating wisdom and who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a house, the continuance in the body itself as a consequence of the persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have started bearing fruit, because the awareness of being distinct (from the body) arises while one is in the body itself.” (Gambhirananda translation)

    So the question is: in what sense can there be “absolute separation from the body” in the case of a living jñānī who is still perceiving and acting?

    If this is taken to mean the literal absence of a body-mind, it would contradict those descriptions. If, on the other hand, the body-mind continues to function but is no longer taken to be the Self, then “separation” must refer to the absence of identification rather than the absence of the body itself.

    I am simply asking how you reconcile these statements without introducing such a distinction.

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

26. Dennis

    “I have never denied that Śaṅkara is referring to a living jīvanmukta in that passage.”

    The passage in contention is set out below, drawn from your main article, in which you use the passage to support your position re: liberation (vyavaharika) can only happen on death. You wrote in your main article above:

    “Regarding liberation, from the vyāvahārika standpoint THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN ON DEATH OF THE BODY-MIND, WHEN THE PRĀRABDHA KARMA EXPIRES. AND, WITHOUT A MIND, THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE. ŚAṄKARA SAYS (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad bhāṣya 3.9.28.7):
    “There can be no knowledge in the state of liberation where body, sense and motor organs as well as the mind do not remain to make it possible. Liberation means separation from the body, absolute separation.”

    15 March, 16:48 you wrote a post Dennis:
    “But the notional ‘disembodiment’ does not occur until death.”

    17 March, 14:01, Dennis:
    “Surely, body, sense organs and mind ‘not remaining’ means ‘dead’? And, without a mind, no knowledge is possible. ‘LIBERATION MEANS ABSOLUTE SEPARATION FROM THE BODY’ EQUATES TO DEATH IN MY UNDERSTANDING.”

27. Yes, Venkat. LITERAL liberation, in the sense of a change happening in vyavahAra, cannot occur until death of the body.

    But the point is that the Self is ALWAYS free. From a pAramArthika perspective, ‘liberation’ in the sense of something happening, is meaningless. Hence, the only way that we can make sense of these quotations is if the word ‘liberation’ is understood in a figurative sense.

28. Dennis,

    Can you try to stick to one point at a time and maintain some logical reasoning capacity. There are two separate points here:

    1) Whether Sankara was referring to a living or dead jivanmukta. Your initial posts suggest that you believed the latter.

    Vide:
    You said most recently “I have never denied that Śaṅkara is referring to a living jīvanmukta in that passage.”
    However, I have supplied you with your own words such as “Surely, body, sense organs and mind ‘not remaining’ means ‘dead’?

    2) The next point in logic is if you now agree that Sankara was referring to a living jivanmukta, then whether or not “body, sense organ and mind not remaining” is to be figuratively or literally interpreted.

    These are two separate points in an argument, and you seem to be confusing them.

29. I think you are repeating yourself, Venkat, as well as becoming increasingly rude – something that I will not tolerate.

    You have also now failed to answer my simple questions 6 or 7 times and instead tried to divert the discussion elsewhere.

    This thread has now become so long that few readers are likely to stay with it. Accordingly, I am closing it to further comments. I am going to provide a summary of the discussion so far (with which you will no doubt disagree). If you wish to continue this (politely), you may do so there.

    Dennis

30. Hi Brits,

    I get the impression that Dennis is reiterating the same questions, despite the fact that they have already been addressed.

    In my view, the crucial words to be properly appreciated, understood, and assimilated from Bhagavad Gītā 5.13 are: *naiva kurvan na kārayan*.

    Śaṅkara explains their significance toward the end of his commentary on this verse. It would also be helpful to read Bhagavad Gītā 5.14 in continuation. So, it is not correct to stop midway in the translation of Swami Gambhirananda and raise questions.

    Similarly, the full and correct purport of Bhagavad Gītā 5.8–9 does not appear to have been understood.

    Bhagavad Gītā 5.8–9 states:
    “Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, ‘I do nothing at all,’ even while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, moving, sleeping, breathing, speaking, releasing, grasping, opening and closing the eyes—recognizing that the organs function in relation to their respective objects.”

    Shri P. Neti Ji comments:

    “Where should our focus lie when reading these verses? Is it on the notion that ‘the jñāni sees,’ ‘the jñāni smells,’ and so on?

    Certainly not.

    Then where should the focus be? It should be on the fact that Ātman is entirely unrelated to seeing, smelling, hearing, etc. There is no real seeing, smelling, or hearing in Ātman. That is the teaching. The method is one of negation, not of positive description.

    Everyone says, ‘I see.’ That is ignorance. In Brahman, there is no real seeing; and since the knower of Brahman is none other than Brahman, there is no real seeing even in the so-called seeing of a jñāni. That is the intended teaching.

    Some may think that such negation implies total non-existence, but that is not so. The absence of objectified seeing does not imply the absence of seeing altogether. There is no objectified hearing, yet there is Hearing—pure Consciousness. There is no objectified seeing, yet there is Seeing—pure Consciousness. Moreover, there is no distinction whatsoever between Hearing and Seeing at that level. All such objectified experiences resolve into one undifferentiated stream of pure Consciousness, which is the Reality indicated even in deep sleep. That indeed is the highest truth.”

    Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.23 declares:
    *“Though seeing, It does not see; for there is no cessation of the seer’s seeing, since It is indestructible. But there is no second thing distinct from It that It could see.”*

    Also: *brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati* (the knower of Brahman is Brahman); *ekam eva advitīyam brahma* (Brahman is one without a second); *ayam ātmā brahma* (this Self is Brahman).

    Therefore, quoting śruti to remove misconceptions is entirely appropriate and preserves its validity as a pramāṇa. Using śruti to negate empirical notions in the context of Brahman is fully in keeping with the sampradāyic method.”

    I also note certain fallacies in the initial understandings. Maybe Grace help overcome such obstacles.

    For example, I believe one must banish the notion: “I am ALWAYS free because the Self is ALWAYS free.” The empirical ‘I’— the individual with a specific identity, attributes such as date of birth, address, expertise, family, and so on — is not the pure Self. Śaṅkara clearly affirms this in both the Taittirīya and Bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāṣyas. Until one truly realizes “I am free” by completely shedding identification with all limiting adjuncts, the ‘I’ of our normal parlance is not free.

    If further elaboration (spoon feeding) is expected, I must respectfully step back. Apart from my own limitations of time and energy, I feel that an earnest seeker must cultivate an intense desire to understand, driven by the question, “Where might I be going wrong?” rather than approaching the discussion in a purely challenging spirit.

    regards,

Comments are closed.