Shankara, at over a three dozen places in his bhAShya-s (commentaries) on the three canonical texts (10 Upanishads, brahma sUtra-s and Bhagavad-Gita — collectively known as prasthAna trayI), says that “Liberation” (mokSha) is equivalent to “Disembodiment” (asharIrata). In fact, the opposite thought that “I am embodied” is for him nothing but “ignorance” (ajnAna) from which the whole enchilada of the downstream effects of bondage, appearance of the illusory world, misery and sorrow etc. arise. I present below a few quotes from his writings to illustrate the point.
From 1.1.4, BSB:
1. “From the text, “Happiness and sorrow do not touch one who is definitely bodiless” (8.12.1, chAn.U.), it follows that it is with regard to emancipation, which is the same as bodilessness, that the denial is made of liberation ever being the result of virtuous deeds …”
2. “Hence it is proved that the unembodiedness, called liberation, is eternal and different from the results of works that have to be performed.”
3. “ … unembodiedness is inherent in the Self in accordance with such Vedic texts as, “Having meditated on the Self as bodiless in the midst of bodies, as permanent in the midst of the impermanent, and as great and pervasive, the wise man ceases to grieve” (1.2.22, kaTha) 22), ….”
4. “It is all-pervasive like space, devoid of all modifications, ever content, partless, and self-effulgent by nature. This is that unembodiedness, called liberation, where the idea of the three periods of time does not exist and virtuous and vicious deeds cease along with their effects (happiness and sorrow), as stated in the Vedic text, “Speak of that thing which you see as different from virtue and vice. different from cause and effect, and different from the past and the future” (1.2.14, kaTha). Therefore, liberation is the same as brahman about which this deliberation started.
From 1.3.19, BSB:
5. Unembodiedness or embodiedness for the Self follows respectively from the fact of discrimination or non-discrimination, as stated by the mantra, “Bodiless in the midst of bodies” (1.2.22, kaTha), and by the smRti, “The supreme Self, O’ Son of Kunti, neither acts, nor is affected though existing in the body” (13.31, BG), which mention the absence of any such distinction as embodiedness or unembodiedness. Therefore, the individual self continuing in the state of its unmanifested nature, owing to the absence of discriminatory knowledge, is said to have its real nature manifested when discriminatory knowledge dawns.
Opponent: Suppose we argue that this unembodiedness comes when the body falls, but it cannot be so for a living man.
Vedantin: Not so, for the idea of embodiedness is a result of false nescience. Unless it be through the false ignorance of identifying the Self with the body, there can be no embodiedness for the Self. And we said that the unembodiedness of the Self is eternal, since it is not a product of action.
From 1.3.40, BSB:
6. “The attainment of this Light (i.e. brahman, as explained by Shankara) for the sake of becoming unembodied, as mentioned in, “Happiness and sorrow do not certainly touch one who has become unembodied” (8.12.1, chAn. U.); for unless it be by identity with brahman, there can be no unembodiedness anywhere else.”
From 4.4.2, BSB:
7. “The being that is really without any body is not touched by likes and dislikes” (8.12.1, chAn.U.), and the conclusion is made with, “It becomes established in Its own Self; that is the highest Being” (8.12.3, chAn. U.).
From 4.4.12, BSB:
8. “Vedantin: When a liberated self wishes to have a body, he gets one; and when he desires to remain without it, he has none; for his will is true and desires are diverse.”
From 4.4.13, BSB:
9. “In the view that the body, together with the sense-organs, ceases to exist in liberation, …”
From Mantra 8, Isha:
10. “The Self is all-pervasive, pure, bodiless, without wound, without sinews …”
[Shankara explains that the Self is without subtle and gross bodies (asnAviraM, akAyaM).]
From Mantra 4.10, prashna:
11. “He who realises that shadowless, bodiless, colourless, pure, Immutable attains the supreme Immutable Itself. O’ amiable one, he, again, who realizes, becomes omniscient and all.”
From 1.2.22, kaTha U:
12. Having meditated on the Self, as bodiless in the midst of bodies, as permanent in the midst of the impermanent, and as great and pervasive, the wise man does not grieve.
Shankara writes: “The Self in Its own nature, is like space; (having meditated on) that Self (as), unembodied — as that bodiless Self; in the midst of bodies — of gods, Manes, human beings, etc.; (as) permanent, i.e. unchanging; in those that have no fixity — amidst the impermanent; …”
From 2.7.1, taittirIya U:
13. “… whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established in this unperceivable, bodiless inexpressible, and unsupporting brahman, he reaches the state of fearlessness.”
Shankara writes: “The meaning of the sentence is: (When) in that entity which is this changeless, unembodied, inexpressible, unsustaining brahman, (the aspirant) gets; stability, Self-absorption; in a fearless way. … (When the aspirant gets this fearless stability in brahman) since he does not see then diversity that is the creation of ignorance and is the cause of fear, therefore, he becomes established in fearlessness. When he becomes established in his true nature, then he does not see anything else, does not hear anything else, does not know anything else.”
From 3.9.28 (7), BUB:
14. Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will have no support …”
From 4.4.7, BU and BUB:
15. “When all the desires that dwell in his heart (mind) are gone, then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, and attains brahman in this very body.’ Just as the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off and lies in the anthill, so does this body lie. Then the self becomes disembodied and immortal, (becomes) the prANa (Supreme Self), brahman, the Light.”
16. “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 anthill, 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.”
From 8.1.1, chAn.U.B.:
17. “… brahman is like space because of unembodiedness, and because of the similarity of subtleness
and all-pervasiveness.”
From 8.3.4, chAn.U.B.:
18. “The nature of the Self surely is unembodiedness.”
From 8.12.1, chAn. U. B:
19. “ Although by the expression, ‘of the Immortal’, unembodiedness
becomes established ipso facto; still, the expression, asharIrasya, of the unembodied, is used again to avoid the possibility of thinking that the Self has got parts and forms like air etc. ”
20. “ Embodiedness for the Self which is naturally without any body, consists in Its identification with the body through indiscrimination that, ‘I am that body indeed, and the body verily am I’. Therefore, it is well-known that by becoming sasharirah (embodied), It comes within the grasp of the desirable and the undesirable.”
21. “Again, the desirable and the undesirable cannot touch It which has become unembodied, freed from the nondiscriminating idea of identity with the body, through the Knowledge of Its own nature of unembodiedness.”
22. “… the desirable and the undesirable do not touch the
unembodied.”
23. “That attainment of the Self which is unembodied like space, and which is achieved through the realization of the Self of all beings, all worlds, and all desires, that beneficial matter is what is intended to be
spoken of by Prajapati to Indra.”
From 8.14.1, chAn.U.B.:
24. “’That which is indeed called Space’, etc. is meant to set forth the characteristics of brahman for the sake of meditation. That which is indeed called Space, is the Self well-known in the Upanishads.
(It is called Space) because It is bodiless and subtle like space.”
***
[Note: 1. All translations are from Swami Gambirananda’s works except for those of brihadAraNyaka which are taken from Swami Madhavananda’s translation. (The word ‘soul’ used by Sw-G is replaced by me as ‘self’).
2. The thrust of Shankara’s commentaries can be better appreciated if the entire bhAShya under each mantra referred to in the post is studied.]
you answered it all! Liberation escapes you because you don’t want it. The idea of liberation where you can eat a leg of a hen while still collecting eggs suits us most!
Thanks, Vijay.
Yes, the normal human tendency, to “have the cake and eat it too,” will not work for an aspirant after mokSha. It will be like wishing to spend in your wakeful world a huge stash of cash you acquired in your dream the previous night, says Advaita. So long as even a slight inkling of affinity or attachment to the phenomenal dualistic world persisits, one cannot hope for liberation!
regards,
Quite
Ramesam,
Thanks for compiling the quotes. This prompted me to contemplate BG 5.13:
“Renouncing. all actions by thought, and Self-controlled, the EMBODIED ONE rests happily in the nine-gated city, neither at all acting nor causing to act”
As you know, BG5 is a response to Arjuna asking which is better, karma yoga or samnyasa. Krishna up to about 5.12 extols karma yoga. Thereafter he shifts his focus.
Sankara essentially signposts this in his bhasya for 5.12: “attains the peace called moksha, as the result of devotion, through the following stages: first, purity of the mind [thru karma yoga]; then, attainment of knowledge; then, renunciation ‘of all actions; and lastly, devotion to knowledge.
This is very similar to his BUB 3.5.1:
“therefore to this day the knower of Brahman, having known all about scholarship or this knowledge of the Self from the teacher and the srutis – having fully mastered it -should renounce desires . . . therefore the knower of Brahman, after renouncing_ desires, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge . . . Strength is the total elimination of the vision of objects by Self-knowledge; hence the knower of Brahman should try to live upon that strength . . . Having known all about this strength as well as scholarship, he becomes meditative”
So the “embodied one” mentioned in BGB 5.13, is in that renunciation / strength stage, which culminates in meditation on / devotion to Self-knowledge.
Does that make sense?
Best,
venkat
Hi Venkat,
Thank you for the reference to the 5th Chapter in the BG,
It is perhaps the only place where Shankara talks about krama mukti (progressive liberation or liberation in stages) and sadyomukti (Immediate liberation or liberation here and now).
But before that, let me clarify one point. Shri Alladi translates the word “niShTha” as devotion. But I always translated and understood “niShTha” as “abidance.” The word “devotion” seems to me to have acquired a sense of dualistic tinge in the many decades since Shri Alladi.
Shri P. Neti Ji writes: “Kalpadruma says:
नितरां तिष्ठति इति निष्ठा
नितराम् is key here. It means “always” or “completely”.
‘Always or completely established [in whatever]’ is niShThA.
It may also be translated as “one pointed devotion” or simply “devotion” in the sense “[always / completely] devoted to [whatever]”
Though “Devotion” also conveys the meaning in above mentioned way, “Steadfastness” or “Abidance” conveys the meaning in a better way.”
2. In his ‘sambandha bhAShya’ to the 27th verse, Ch. 5, Shankara writes:
“Immediate Liberation of the monks who are steadfast in full realization has been stated (I.e. till 5.26).
And the Bhagavan has said, and will say, at every stage that Karma-Yog, undertaken as a dedication to Brahman by surrendering all activities to Bhagavan, leads to “Liberation through stages” (kramamukti).” (Trans: Sw-G).
You have already made a reference to the “kramamukti” in your comment when you gave the schema: “purity of the mind [thru karma yoga] –> attainment of Knowledge –> renunciation ‘of all actions –> abidance as Knowledge.
regards,
Hi Ramesam,
Most impressed by your collection here! Thank you. (It would be interesting, and helpful for my own writing, to hear how you found them all!)
I would, however, just like to make a clarification for those readers who might be tempted to take them literally. I realize that I am not this chair (that the body happens to be sitting on at present), as soon as ‘I’ stand up and move about. Similarly, I realize that I am not this body, as soon as I gain Self-knowledge. Nevertheless, neither the chair nor the body, respectively, disappear on these realizations. I.e. ‘disembodied’ is a figurative term, rather than a literal one!
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis
I predicted to Ramesam that you would respond “figurative rather than literal”. I must be acquiring siddhis
🙂
venkat
Dear Dennis and Venkat,
Kudos to your siddhi of “Clairvoyance,” Venkat!
Thank you.
One thing that bothers me much with your idea of “Disembodiment” being only “figurative,” Dennis, is the fact that not even at a single place, out of the forty or so occurrences where Shankara talks about it, does he say that it is “figurative / not literal” (aupacArika). On the contrary, he vouhsafes its certitude.
Therefore, I would like to submit to you and the readers of this site an alternate “model” based on the fact that the Advaita teaching is always addressed in the Agama tradition on a one-on-one basis; and hence, the Advaita message has to be “understood” from the First person perspective (intuitively) only and not from the pov of a 3rd person or an object (chairs; bodies; people).
And my submission is:
Say, you or Venkat are in a dreamless Deep sleep in London. In your own experience during deep sleep, there is no London, your family, house, your bed or even your own body. You are without any desires or miseries (4.3.19, BU).
Even the sense of a ‘me’ is lost and the familiar awake world has completely disappeared. It does not matter for you, who is in deep sleep, that someone in India has been already out of sleep and rushing to his work preparing himself to face the troubles and travails of life or someone else in New York was being mugged! For you, the World or even a thought of it does not exist in your own experience.
Likewise, for some one who has identified himself/herself *totally* with formless, featureless, disembodied brahman, in his/her own intuitive realization and understanding, the world and its variegated objects could disappear.
I wonder what can be your objection for this suggestion.
regards,
[P.S.: How the Self-realized lives with total “detachment” to the body, right in the midst of a body, is discussed in great detail by Shankara in his bhAShya on Bhagavad-Gita. Some hint of it is available in the quotes given above at 4.4.7, BUB and 1.2.22, kaTha. I hope to take it up as part of my Series on “sadyomukti.”]
Dear Venkat and Ramesam,
I don’t think siddhis are necessary here. A simple reference to our prolonged discussions on ‘disappearance of the world’ would suffice!
What is certain is that, on enlightenment, the mind knows that ‘I am Brahman’, that ‘I am not the mind’, that ‘the world is an appearance only’. But hey, guess what – the appearance continues, just like the mirage. And, yes, it all does disappear in deep sleep. Why? Precisely because the mind is inactive.
Incidentally, my ‘Confusions’ second volume on ‘Ignorance and its Removal’ should be out in a few months I hope; and there is a lots about the ‘world disappearing’ and related aspects, with many references to PTB.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Ramesam,
You say: “P.S.: How the Self-realized lives with total “detachment” to the body, right in the midst of a body, is discussed in great detail by Shankara in his bhAShya on Bhagavad-Gita.”
Does not your use of the phrase ‘right in the midst of a body’ confirm that you actually agree with me? The Self is NEVER associated with a body (because there is only the Self in reality). Yet the unenlightened believe that they are the body. Enlightenment means that this state of affairs is now understood correctly. There is only the Self, and I am That – right in the midst of a body. The appearance continues but I now know that it is only appearance.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
In order to be able to satisfactorily answer your question, as far as my knowledge goes, one has to necessarily bring in the concepts of “sadyomukti” (Immediate or ‘here and now’ liberation) and “kramamukti” (Progressive or ‘step by step’ liberation), a fact I already mentioned in a previous comment. Things can get a bit murky and too complicated here – a reason why I did not discuss these in the current Post.
A successful seeker who realizes the Self but is still burdened with a body and a world s/he continues to perceive will have to wait for liberation, as 6.14.2, chAn.U. says: “For him the delay is for that long only, as long as he does not become freed.”
Shankara explains in his bhAShya at this mantra, how long the ‘delay’ will be. He writes: “The meaning is that the delay is for that long till the body falls after the enjoyment of the fruits of action due to which it was born.”
Further, he states unequivocally at 4.1.15, BSB: “He lingers so long only as he is not freed from the body; then he becomes free” (6.14.2, chAn.U.), shows that **liberation is put off** till the death of the body**.
[Please note the words “liberation is *put off* till the death of the body.”]
In the case of krama mukti, the death of the ‘body’ can take place at one or two levels depending on whether the seeker realized the nirguNa brahman or was a follower of saguNa brahman. For the worshiper of the saguNa brahman, death occurs first to the gross physical body; the second is the death of the subtle or AtivAhika sharIra with which the seeker travels after the death of the gross body to the ‘loka’ of his favorite deity (saguNa brahman). He/she attains mokSha along with the ‘Brahma’ of that loka (4.3.10, BSB). The path followed by such devotees after the death of their gross body and other details appear at Chapter 8 of chAndogya, Chapter 6 of brihadAraNyaka etc.
Another point I would like to bring to your notice is that the individuals who still retain a mind (similar to what you describe like being able to perceive a world) will not attain absolute liberation as brahman because of the very fact that they possess a mind! They may attain many powers (siddhis such as aNima etc.) but not the power to running the universe (creation etc.), vide 4.4.17, 4.4.21, BSB.
There is one more complication with respect to the final nirvANa of those who get krama mukti. Some of them like Sage Aparantaratamas, Vyasa, Vasishta and so on may be assigned Special duties as In-Charges of specific works related to ‘Creation.’ Such Sages though liberated continue to exist in their bodies till the assigned job is completed as Shankara mentions at 3.3.32, BSB. Therefore, they have a further ‘delay’ in attaining total ‘merger’ in brahman (“Being but brahman, he is merged in brahman,” 4.4.6, BU).
However, it may be noted that neither in the case of kramamukti nor in sadyomukti, does the seeker will be reborn on the earth (4.4.22, BSB).
What I have written above is only an abridged big picture, without going into all the complications concerned with one who is burdened with a body etc. as per your question.
The reference to the commentary of Shankara on Bhagavad-Gita was made by me with regard to another possible and commonly asked question which was not raised by you in your above comment. It pertains to ‘sadyomukti’ wherein the successful seeker ‘immeditely and right away’ gets totally detached (to the body).
The question that arises then is: how does the body survive and where from does it draw its energy till such time as its shelf-life lasts? As I already referred to, we have Shankara’s response to such questions at 4.4.7, BUB. The Gita bhAShya deals with them in more detail. It may not be applicable to the scenario that you speak about in your question. If your question is only with respect to the semantics and phraseology used by me, I have to say that it is perhaps the best way one can go about under the circumstances — Sage Vyasa dramatizing the conversation between Pure Consciousness and an ardent seeker by giving a voice and personality to the “bodiless, Infinite, indescribable Beingness.”
Finally, in closing, let me reiterate the fact that I am still a seeker only and I have much left to understand.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
Thank you for your well-considered response. All your points are recognized. They trigger numerous thoughts but I am not going to attempt to reply here. I have a number of other tasks at present. As soon as I am able, I will begin a separate post on the topic. I anticipate that it could be very significant!
Best wishes,
Dennis