Tag Archives: Liberation

Does the Jñānī see the world when he is Paramātmā?

Posted on by
17

[Article Sourced From: Here ]

From the standpoint of Pure Adi Śaṅkara Vedānta, the answer is no. The jñānī, as Paramātmā, does not see the world. More exactly, he does not become a seer of anything second to himself. Realization does not turn an individual into Brahman as a new state; it removes the false notion that the ever-free Self was ever bound, ignorant, or finite.[1]

Why is this so? Because seeing necessarily implies duality: a seer, an act of seeing, and an object seen. But the Upaniṣadic teaching, as understood by Śaṅkara, is that this entire triad belongs only to ignorance. When everything has become the Self, the question itself arises: by what could one see, and whom? Likewise, the Self is not something that can be objectified, for “the seer of seeing” can never itself become a seen object.[2] Hence Brahman cannot literally be a perceiver in the empirical sense. Continue reading →

Upadesa Sahasri (Part 16)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 15

Chapter 15 Impossibility of one being another

15.1 The essential nature of a jiva is not different from Brahman for otherwise the jiva will be essentially finite. Any amount spiritual practice can bring about only superficial changes and not changes in the essential nature. Finite cannot become infinite. If at all it becomes infinite, it will lose its essential nature which means destruction. In that case, liberation is ruled out. The conclusion is that jiva is essentially Brahman. A doubt may arise. If a jiva is already Brahman, what is the need of a teacher and scriptures? The answer is that they are needed to remove the ignorance about our true identity.

Continue reading →

Śaṅkara – on ‘enlightenment’ versus ‘liberation’

Posted on by
2

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.

Continue reading →

Summary of the Discussion on ‘Enlightenment and Liberation’ Terms

Posted on by
3

My two-part ‘Terms and Definition’ post on ‘Enlightenment and Liberation’ triggered considerable, sometimes ‘heated’ discussion. Part 1 had 11 comments and Part 2 so many that WordPress does not seem able to cope and does not provide the ‘speech bubble’ with number of comments against the title. (I believe it was around 35.) Since it would take a reader considerable time to work through all of these, I am providing here a summary of the discussion, constructed with the help of ChatGPT.

Towards the end of those discussions, Ramesam referred to the 3-part article by P. Neti on the topic of jīvanmukti. Ramesam posted this to Advaita Vision just over 3 years ago. It begins at https://www.advaita-vision.org/on-jivanmukti-shri-p-neti-1-3/. This article plays a part in subsequent comments (so even more for those interested to read!)

Herewith, then, is the AI-assisted summary of our discussions following the terms and definition posts. Following this summary, I am going to re-post the last of Ramesam’s comments on Part 2. This is because I closed comments before responding to that. Then I will post a further comment that Ramesam sent to me privately. Finally, I will post my overall comments on the P. Neti article and Ramesam’s two comments.

I hope you can follow all of that! To recap, there is this summary, two comments from Ramesam, posted by myself, and my response to everything so far. After that is anyone’s guess as comments will again be open to all.

Continue reading →

Enlightenment and Liberation – AI View

Posted on by
8

I interacted with ChatGPT eliciting greater clarity on the two terms, Enlightenment and Liberation in Advaita Vedanta. I copy below the responses I got from Chat GPT.

Prompt (P):  Is there a difference between the two phrases “Knowledge of the Self” and “Knowledge about the Self” in Advaita Vedanta? What are the nearest Sanskrit words for the two phrases?

Do “Enlightenment” and “Liberation” mean the same in Advaita Vedanta?

Please give verified authentic PTB citations for what you say. Continue reading →

Enlightenment and Liberation (Part 2)

Posted on by

*** Read Part 1 ***

Note that there has been some discussion on Part 1 and there may be some overlap with this new (concluding) part.

Reasoning

The reasoning behind the differentiation (between enlightenment and liberation) is straightforward:

  • The scriptures tell us that we are already Brahman.
  • Since Brahman is eternally free, so must we be.
  • Initially, the jīva does not know this.
  • Consequently, the teaching of a qualified guru is needed.
  • If it were something that is ‘produced’ (i.e. not existing before), it could not be permanent.
  • Mokṣa is ‘nitya siddha’, ever accomplished. It is automatically ‘acknowledged’ when the knowledge triggers akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti.
  • It is not ‘produced’ by the teaching, since mokṣa is already the case and something that is permanent cannot be produced. ‘Liberation’ is a figurative concept in the sense that there is never any real bondage.
  • The notion that we are bound is a mistaken superimposition (adhyāsa) that is sublated (bādha) by the teaching.

There is extensive support for these definitions, from both scriptures and Śaṅkara bhāṣya-s, emphasizing that the realization of our already existing reality as Brahman (liberation) comes only from knowledge. It is the efficacious attainment of that knowledge that is called ‘enlightenment’ as explained by the metaphor of the ‘tenth man’.

Continue reading →

Self-study of The Upanishads

Posted on by
1

It is heartening to see a growing number of analytically-minded individuals, trained in the modular rigor of Western education, turning to the Upanishads today. Unfortunately, when approached through isolated self-study, the profound Non-dual “Wisdom” these ancient texts impart often remains elusive, as they were traditionally designed for guided inquiry rather than as graded textbooks developed within a rigid framework of a pre-determined curriculum.

Consequently, there is a distinct danger that an overconfident reader, studying in isolation, may come away with spurious inferences—the very concepts the Upanishads seek to dismantle. Therefore, the scriptures consistently advise an earnest spiritual aspirant to seek out a competent teacher (Guru) with utmost humility ( see: 1.2.12, muNDaka; 4.34, BG; 1.1.5, US (Prose); etc.) to truly attain Non-dual Wisdom.

Continue reading →

Enlightenment and Liberation (Part 1)

Posted on by
11

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.

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahma Sutra Bhasya Part 6

Posted on by
Reply

Part 5

BSB 4.1.4 and 4.1.5
Doubt: There are texts, “One should meditate about space as Brahman” and “The sun is Brahman”. The doubt is, whether self-identification should be resorted. The opponent says that one should identify oneself with those symbols as well (thinking thus: “I am the symbol which is Brahman”). Because Brahman is familiar as the Self and the symbols also are forms of Brahman. The aphorist clarifies that meditator should not identify himself with a symbol, for he cannot consider himself to be so. Brahman is taught to be identical with the individual Self after eliminating empirical characteristics like agent ship etc. from the latter, whereas meditation is prescribed without eliminating these. As the meditator and the symbols are both limited entities, self-identity with symbols is ruled out. There are supporting texts. “He who having known thus meditates about the sun as Brahman” (Ch 3.19.4). “He who meditates organ of speech as Brahman” (Ch 7.2.2). “He who meditates about resolve as Brahman” (Ch 7.4.3).

Continue reading →

Chandogya Upanishad and Brahm Sutra Bhasya Part 5

Posted on by
Reply

Part 4

Part 6

BSB 2.3.9
There is no possibility of origin of Brahman which is of the nature of Existence. It cannot originate from Existence for otherwise it leads to infinite regress. Moreover, there should be some distinguishing features for a causal relationship. Brahman cannot originate from non-existence (Ch 6.2.2). For creation, a primary origin-free material cause is to be admitted, and Brahman is the primary material cause.

Continue reading →