Here is what Śaṅkara says on this topic in his bhāṣya on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7. Following this, I have added some observations on what he says (Swami Madhavananda translation).
Objection: The topic was knowledge – when the Self is known, everything else is known. So why is a different topic, viz. attainment, introduced here?
Reply: Not so, for the shruti uses the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘attainment’ as synonymous. The non-attainment of the Self is but the ignorance of it. Hence the knowledge of the Self is Its attainment.
The attainment of the Self cannot be, as in the case of things other than It, the obtaining of something not obtained before, for here there is no difference between the person attaining and the object attained. Where the Self has to attain something other than Itself, the Self is the attainer and the non-Self is the object attained. This, not being already attained, is separated by acts such as producing, and is not to be attained by the initiation of a particular action with the help of particular auxiliaries. And the attainment of something new is transitory, being due to desire and action that are themselves the product of a false notion, like the birth of a son etc in a dream.
But this Self is the very opposite of that. By the very fact of Its being the Self, It is not separated by acts such as producing. But although It is always attained, It is separated by ignorance only. Just as when a mother-of-pearl appears through mistake as a piece of silver, the non-apprehension of the former, although it is being perceived all the while, is merely due to the obstruction of the false impression, and its (subsequent) apprehension is but knowledge, for this is what removes the obstruction of false impression, similarly here also the non-attainment of the Self is merely due to the obstruction of ignorance. Therefore the attainment of It is simply the removal of that obstruction by knowledge; in no other sense is it consistent.
Hence we shall explain how for the realisation of the Self every other means but knowledge is useless.
The fact that I am always the non-dual Brahman is amply noted elsewhere. I am simply initially ignorant of this fact. Gaining Self-knowledge brings realization of this ever-existent fact. Therefore, I cannot actually ‘attain’ the Self (in the sense of getting something I do not currently have), since I am already the Self. What I ‘attain’ is knowledge of this fact. Therefore, pedantically, ‘gaining Self-knowledge’ and ‘attaining the Self’ can NOT be literally the same.
What Śaṅkara is doing here is clarifying how it can be that, despite the fact that we are already ‘free’ (the Self is ever ‘attained’), we can seem to attain it. He acknowledge that the Upanishad is effectively making the words ‘knowledge’ and ‘attainment’ synonymous and he says that ‘non-attainment’ of the Self is ‘ignorance’. Therefore, (gaining) knowledge of the Self is its (effective) attainment.
But the point is that what is happening is the removal of ignorance via knowledge. This is what constitutes the ‘attainment’. I.e. ‘attainment’ is figurative, not literal. We cannot attain that which is ever-attained, or ‘accomplish the accomplished’. Accordingly, as was already pointed out in the main ‘Terms and Definition’ post:
Liberation = ever accomplished (ontological);
Enlightenment = arises in the intellect (epistemological).
There is no ‘real’ attainment of the Self, only the gaining of Self-knowledge.
[Note that all aspects relating to ‘enlightenment’ are discussed in ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta Vol. 1 – Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’. You can see all the links to extracts etc. in the post regarding the Kindle books.]
Dear Dennis,
Thanks for this piece of yours.
I read it 3-4 times (which I rarely do) to understand what you are trying to convey. It was more confusing than clarifying to me!
It looked to me that you set out to prove your viewpoint that “Therefore, pedantically, ‘gaining Self-knowledge’ and ‘attaining the Self’ can NOT be literally the same.”
But from your own quotes from Shankara bhASya, you established the invalidity of the above statement.
In this connection, I request you to please take a look at points 17-18 and 29-30 in my short post on 1.4.7, BUB at:
https://www.advaita-vision.org/gems-from-1-4-7-bub/
It does not appear to me that Shankara intends to say what you indicate through the logic you developed in the para opening with “What Śaṅkara is doing here is clarifying how it can be that, despite the fact that we are already ‘free’ (the Self is ever ‘attained’), we can seem to attain it.”
In fact, he is very categorical and consistent in his stand all through 1.4.7 to declare, “the Shruti, wishing to express the **indubitable** (nirAshankameva) identity of meaning of knowledge and attainment, says after introducing knowledge, ‘May get’ for the root ‘vid’ also means ‘to get.’
So, there is no schism that can be postulated between ‘attainment’ and ‘Liberation.’
The Vedantic word “shravaNa” may fit better, IMHO, what you call here Enlightenment.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
You are right – Śaṅkara is acknowledging that śruti asserts an identity between (gaining) ‘knowledge’ and ‘attaining’ the Self. But the question is: what ‘sort’ of identity is he recognizing? He is obliged to acknowledge that the Self is not actually ‘attained’ because it is nitya siddha. The ‘distinction’ is only at the level of vyavahāra. So the ‘attainment’ can only be the gaining of Self-knowledge (or ‘removal of ignorance’ – but I prefer not to put it like that because it implies that ignorance is something real).
The point is that, if knowledge and attainment were literally identical, there would be no need for Śaṅkara to reinterpret ‘attainment’ as the removal of ignorance. The very fact that he does so shows that ‘attainment’ is not being used in its primary sense. Śaṅkara’s use of the word ‘indubitable’ merely emphasizes the fact that the figurative ‘attainment’ means nothing other than ‘knowledge’. It is not acknowledging attainment to be the same as knowledge in a literal sense.
I suggest that it does NOT mean that nothing at all can be said about a difference in meaning between the ‘ever-accomplished’ Self and the realization of this in the intellect. I believe Śaṅkara is simply acknowledging the effective identity of the literal acquisition of Self-knowledge and the figurative ‘attainment’ of what was always the case. I am not saying that Śaṅkara’s statement was incorrect but clarifying this distinction. I am not ‘contradicting’ Śaṅkara but rejecting an over-literal interpretation of what he is saying.
If you deny this, it seemingly overlooks the distinction that Śaṅkara was making with his silver-nacre metaphor, which he uses here to explain ‘attainment’. Gaining knowledge of the nacre (Self-knowledge) does not actually gain the nacre because it was always present. The gaining is figurative. He says: “the non-apprehension of the former, although it is being perceived all the while”. The ‘attaining’ of the nacre means ‘correctly knowing it’, not ‘producing’ or ‘acquiring’ it.
This differentiates ‘ontological’ from ‘epistemological’ as I explained in the original post.
• ‘Nacre is always present’ = ‘Self is always attained’. These are the ontological explanation.
• (Gaining) knowledge of nacre or Self is the epistemological position.
The nacre is not literally attained, even after knowledge, since it was never ‘unattained’. What changes is only the understanding. Without this distinction, Śaṅkara’s use of the metaphor becomes redundant, since the example explicitly depends upon the difference between what is always the case and what comes to be known. If you think otherwise, please explain how you understand its function.
Śaṅkara does not establish an identity in the sense you suggest. He is effectively saying that what we call attainment is actually (just) the gaining of Self-knowledge. ‘Attainment’ is figurative. His objective is precisely that – to deny that the Self is something that is in some way acquired. He achieves this by equating knowledge and attainment but not in the sense that you are taking it. His reference to removal of ignorance and the silver-nacre metaphor preserves a distinction between the ‘ever-accomplished’ Self and the gaining of Self-knowledge by the intellect. If this distinction is not preserved, there is no ‘explanation’ at all.
Best wishes,
Dennis