1. Jivan Mukti Viveka Knowing Brahman while Embodied, Sankara on Jivanmukti (JIP) Andrew Fort

ANDREW O. FORT

KNOWING BRAHMAN WHILE EMBODIED: ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI

The nature of liberation is a central focus of Indian thought in general, and advaita (nondual) Vedānta in particular. Śankara, the great architect of advaita, repeatedly addresses this issue. This paper will focus on one aspect of liberation: whether liberation is possible in life, that is, while embodied - a status called jīvanmukti.1 While Sankara only once uses the term jīvanmukti and never directly characterizes the jivanmukta, he certainly holds to the possibility of liberation while living. Later advaitins take the discussion of jivanmukti much further, yet as is the case with so many topics in advaita, Śankara sets many of the parameters for considering this subject.2 In the context of living liberation, Śankara seems most concerned with exploring why and how long the body continues after . liberation, which raises issues about the relationships between libera- tion and embodiment, knowledge and action, and kinds of karma (with their fruits). Briefly, Sankara argues that liberation arises from knowledge of brahman/ätman identity; it does not come from, and is not the same as, the fall of the body or even becoming immortal in heaven. The highest knowledge is that you are the self, not a body/mind entity; in fact, belief in the body's reality causes (re)embodiment and ending identification of body and self brings liberation. Since one achieves knowledge while embodied, one can (actually, must) become liberated while living. Clearly then, liberation does not contradict bodily exist- ence (although cessation of ignorance will eventually bring cessation of embodiment). Further, knowledge of the self does not result from any embodied action (including meditation or god-like powers), but some actions (like sacrifice) can assist in attaining brahma-jñāna. Finally, the body continues after knowledge due to the need to experience the fruits of currently manifesting actions, but there is a limit to the continuity of this body (and in a few exceptional cases, later bodies).

Journal of Indian Philosophy 19: 369-389, 1991. C 1991 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

370 ANDREW O. FORT

SOME DEFINITIONS

Below we shall look at how Sankara describes living liberation and the liberated being, but we must first consider how he defines certain terms crucial for understanding jīvanmukti: the self (atman), liberation (mukti/moksa), and knowledge (jñāna/vidyā). The self is, of course, identical with brahman, qualityless ultimate reality. Sankara defines the self most clearly in his commentary on BS I. 1. 4: it is the highest reality, eternally preeminent, all pervasive like the sky, without any activity, eternally satisfied, partless, and naturally self-luminous.3 It is also free from bondage and any limitation as those which condition waking, dream, or deep sleep (BS IV. 4. 2). Śankara defines moksa4 as the cessation of ignorance and bondage to transmigratory existence (samsāra). More positively, liberation is the nature of the self (ätmasvabhäva) as heat and light are the nature of fire (BäU IV. 4. 6). Being liberated is like regaining your natural well- being after an illness (BS IV. 4. 2). Moksa is also being the self of all (BāU III. 9. 28, Tait. III. 10. 5-6), which is the fruit of knowledge (BS III. 3. 32, III. 4. 52).5 Since the self is brahman, liberation is also called being brahman (BS III. 4. 52, BāU IV. 4. 6-7) or merging with brahman (as a handful of water thrown into a watertank merges there, BāU III. 9. 28). Śankara elaborates in BS III. 4. 52 by saying that the liberated being's "state" (avasthā) is one form: simply brahman alone.6 There are no degrees or distinctions in liberation, and it is always attained.7 Liberation (being brahman and the self of all), while always attained, is not always recognized. There are two kinds of knowledge - that of the everday world (vyavaharika) and the highest nondual knowing (pāramārthika). From the vyāvahārika level, we don't know who/what we are. That is, only after knowing the nonduality of self and brahman does one realize that mukti is always (i.e. already) attained (siddha).8 The highest knowledge is unqualified (nirguna), and since it has no distinctions, its fruit (liberation) is also without differ- ence.9 To introduce a point I will return to later, Śankara's understanding of moksa and jñāna, while making plausible liberation while living, also makes him uncomfortable with much Upanisadic language

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 371

describing the highest end of existence. In BaU IV. 4. 6, for example, he describes liberation in terms different from the more traditional Upanisadic notion of the highest end as physical immortality in heaven. Since liberation is the eternal nature of the self, moksa is not really another state, reached only after death.10 Were this so, the Upanisadic teaching of the oneness of the self would be contradicted and karma (not jñāna) would cause liberation. Thus any distinction between "mukta" and "amukta" is ultimately a delusion.11

Given these definitions, let us consider how Śankara describes liberation while living. Living liberation arises from knowledge of the self while embodied. As he writes in BS III. 3. 32: liberation is simul- taneous with right insight, and is directly and indubitably experienced here,12 as is said in BaU III. 4. 1 ("brahman is direct and immediate") and the famous "tattvamasi" of ChU VI. 8. 7: you (the ätman) are that (brahman), not you will become that after death. BāU IV. 4. 6 puts it succinctly: being brahman, one merges with brahman ("brahmaiva san brahmāpyeti"), and Sankara adds this occurs here and not when the body falls. Śankara addresses living liberation perhaps most clearly in his Katha Upanisad commentary. In Katha V. 1, he writes that one can be free from ignorance and desires here while living and as śruti says "having been liberated (from avidyā), he is free" i.e. he will not take on another body. Katha VI. 4 says that if one is able to awaken here before the body falls (visrasa) (one is liberated, and if not) one becomes embodied in the world of creatures. Sankara adds that there- fore one should reach for self realization before dropping the body, for here alone (i.e. while living and liberated) one sees the self as clearly as in a mirror.

THE LIVING LIBERATED BEING

What is the character and conduct of the liberated yet still embodied being? Śankara never directly addresses this question. There are a few brief indications of his view in the Upanisad commentaries, such as BāU IV. 4. 6, which says the mukta is both desireless and has attained all desires (since he has attained the self).13 BāU I. 4. 2 describes

372 ANDREW O. FORT

Prajāpati as knowing unity while in human form, since all sins caused by the opposite of dharma, knowledge (jñāna), renunciation (vairāgya), and aiśvarya (supernatural powers) are burnt. He now has excellence in memory, intelligence, and insight. The closest Śankara comes to full descriptions of the liberated being, however, are the Upadesasahasri's characterizations of the student desirous of liberation and the teacher (ācārya) and the Bhagavad Gita's account of the one with firm wisdom (sthita-prajña). Upadeśasāhasrī Prose I. 2 characterizes one desirous of liberating knowledge as: indifferent to all non-eternal things, without desire for son, wealth, or world, in the highest state of mendicancy (paramahamsa parivrājya), endowed with equanimity, self-control, compassion, etc., and so on.14 According to I. 6, the teacher com- prehends diverse points of view, is endowed with equanimity, self- control, compassion, concern for others, and is versed in scripture.15 He is also detached from visible and invisible enjoyments, beyond all works and means, and knowing and established in brahman. He has faultless conduct, being free from flaws like selfishness, lying, jealousy, trickery, evildoing, etc. and having the sole aim of helping others, wanting to employ his knowledge. These passages are interesting for many reasons, but the most important one here is the relatively succinct way they summarize Śankara's view of the attributes of the liberated being. Śankara generally says more about mukti than about the conduct of a mukta and his remarks about proper conduct cover conventional ethical ground. His emphases on desirelessness, knowledge of brahman, equanimity, and detachment from works and enjoyments are expected and consistent with much else he says about liberation while living. One could also anticipate the lack of emphasis on yogic practice, dharmic activity, or supernatural powers. What is more unusual is the repeated emphasis on the jivanmukta's compassion (dayā) and concern (anugraha) for others. As we shall later see, neither Śankara nor later advaitins mention such concerns often in the context of living liberation.

Śankara also looks at the liberated being at some length in the section on the one with firm wisdom (sthitaprajña) in the Bhagavadgītā (II. 54ff). When considering the advaitin conception of jīvanmukti, one

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 373

must treat the Gīta passages and comments with some caution, since the views of the Gīta are rather different from those of Śankara and the Upanisadic passages on which he most heavily relies. Still, the Gita's one with firm wisdom is recognizably similar to the advaitin jīvanmukta, and Śankara describes the sthita-prajña in much the same language as the mukta above: a brahman knower or one who has become brahman. His comments on II. 55 are typical: gaining the highest insight (discriminating self and not-self), he is indifferent to all and enjoys the self. The Gita says that the sthita-prajña abandons all desires, is without feelings (fear, anger, pleasure, etc.), is beyond like or dislike, and withdraws his senses from objects like a tortoise into a shell. As his senses and desires are controlled, he is peaceful and serene. In his commentary on this section, Sankara repeatedly uses the term "samnyāsin" (renouncer) to describe the sthita-prajña/jñānin.16 The renouncer (like a knower) abandons son, wealth, and worldly desires. He wanders, doing enough only to keep himself alive, without a desire even to remain in the body. Having renounced as a brahmacārin, he rests in brahman (II. 55, 71-2). While it is not our purpose here to elaborate on the relationship between brahma-jñāna and renunciation, Śankara generally affirms that they go together.17 He also generally focusses on attaining knowledge - renouncing the I-notion, not action, is the highest end. A jīvanmukta-like figure also appears in Gītā V. 23-8, which refers to the yogin who has become brahman and attained brahma-nirvāna here before liberation from the body. Śankara calls this (non)condition moksa18 even while living. Such a yogin has a controlled mind, with desire and anger gone. Sankara again calls this being a samnyāsin, one having gained immediate (sadyo) and permanent (sadā) mukti. Śankara's only explicit usage of "jīvanmukti" (in any work) appears when the Gita describes the yogin with peaceful mind, who, being brahman, gains the highest happiness (VI. 27). Śankara simply adds that such a one is liberated while living.

LIBERATION AND EMBODIMENT

A number of passages assert that liberation-granting knowledge burns the seed of karma and ends all rebirth. These assertions lead us into

374 ANDREW O. FORT

the central problems with the advaitin view of jīvanmukti. As men- tioned earlier, possibly the most important issue concerning jīvan- mukti, to Śankara and in later advaita, is why and how long the body continues after liberating knowledge. One can set up the problematic this way: the body is a result of prior activity (karma) which is part of ignorance, and it is the locus of suffering and seeing duality seemingly inherent in being embodied. Knowledge of the self brings liberation, thus apparently ending ignorance and destroying karma (including the body). How then does embodiment continue? Śankara answers this question in a number of ways. One important response appears when he describes the relationship between libera- tion and embodiment in BS I. 1. 4, and involves an unusual under- standing of bodilessness. He writes that liberation itself is called bodilessness (aśarīratva).19 But bodilessness does not mean being without a physical body; being liberated/bodiless means being utterly detached, untouched by dharmic activity or likes and dislikes. One now knows one is the naturally and eternally bodiless self which does not perform actions and is different from the fruits of action (including the body).20 Since the self is not connected with the body, one does not become bodiless merely by the fall of the body.21 Thus, you are "bodiless" while embodied when you know the self is not the body. Embodiedness, on the other hand, is caused by the false "know- ledge" (mithyājñāna) which identifies the body with the self. The notion of an "I" (ahampratyaya) with a body is a false imagining. As Śankara says in BS I. 3. 2, thinking "I am the body" is avidyā, and results in desire for adoring the body, hatred for its injury, and fear of losing it. He concludes in I. 1. 4 that one who knows that embodied- ness is a false notion is bodiless while living (like the Gīta's sthita- prajña).22 In BāU IV. 4. 7, śruti and Śankara emphasize the knower's abandonment of the body, using the well-known image of the skin shed by a snake. The mukta's body, known as not the self, is to him like cast-off skin is to the snake. When one thinks that the body, tied to desire and action, is the self, one is embodied and mortal, but one is truly separate from the body and immortal.23 Incidentally, this should help clarify Śankara's references to moksa as abandonment or complete separation from the body (BāU IV. 4. 6-7, III. 9. 28. 7, etc.). Moksa is not physical death, but mental

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 375

detachment from the body. As he says in BāU IV. 4. 6, one is only "as if" with a body - it appears but is known as unreal. In BāU III. 3. 1, he adds that moksa is the death of transmigratory death, gained by knowledge, rather than physical termination. While the mukta's body and senses remain until being permanently discarded at death, they have already "disappeared" for him.

BODILY CONTINUITY AFTER LIBERATION

The explanation Sankara most often uses for the continuity of the body is slightly different. It focuses on karma and more readily accepts the everyday understanding of embodiment.24 The starting point for this interpretation is the general rule that when brahman is known, all karma is destroyed. Mukti certainly exists for the knower after the body falls. Yet the body (which consists of karma) continues after brahma-jñāna. Why? Sankara's basic position is that all one's karma must bear fruit before one's body drops, and only karma with uncommenced (anärabdha) fruits are immediately destroyed by knowledge (BS IV. 1. 14-5, 19, BāU I. 4. 7, 10) This point bears elaboration, for Sankara is trying to distinguish between different kinds of karma and fruits, distinctions which become clearer and more formalized in later advaita. All types of karma and fruits but one are destroyed immediately by knowledge, including those karma accumulated (samcita) in prior lives or in this life before jñana arises and those fruits which have not yet commenced (apravrtta, anāgata) manifestation.25 The one kind of karma which endures post-liberation is that bearing partially experienced fruits by which this present life is begun and continues.26 Thus, uncommenced fruits of actions accumulated in prior births or done before or after knowledge in this birth (i.e. all actions except prārabdha karma) are destroyed by right knowledge.27 When enjoyment of the karmic mass (āaya) requiring seeing duality (i.e. prārabdha karma) ends, kaivalya28 inevitably arises as the body falls (BS III. 3. 32, IV. 1. 19).

The idea that when liberated most, but not all, kinds of karma are destroyed was seen, both in and outside of Vedānta, as a problem. How can knowledge destroy some, but not all, karma? Further, if

376 ANDREW O. FORT

there is no sadyo (immediate) mukti, why would it happen eventually? If there is a little delay in liberation, why not a lot? Śankara addresses these questions at greatest length in ChU VI. 14. 2 and BS IV. 1. 15. Final release29 (versus "mere" liberation) happens at time of death (loss of the body) (dehapāta), not when knowledge rises. Jñāna is effective for liberation, but not for immediate loss of the body. ChU VI. 14. 2 states that delay in final release is as long as one is not free (from the body). Sankara interprets this to mean that the delay in attaining the self is as long as the blindfold of ignorance remains in the form of an embodied person enjoying the (already commenced) fruits of action. He then makes a crucial distinction between knowing brahman (or sat) which is immediate and happens in the body versus attaining brahman/sat which is simultaneous with release from the body (but delayed as long as prärabdha karma manifests itself). Śankara then gives the opposing pürvapaksin's view: since there are karma accumulated in prior births with uncommenced fruits, another body will be taken on to enjoy these fruits when this body falls. (Śankara would agree so far.) And one continues to perform enjoined or forbidden actions in the body even after knowledge rises, which then causes another embodiment and more karma. (Sankara parts ways here.) Thus knowledge is useless relative to fruit-bearing actions. On the other hand, if knowledge destroys action, then it would cause final release (i.e. attaining sat/death) immediately. If this were so, there could be no teacher and thus no knowledge giving liberation (since liberating knowledge comes from a teacher and a teacher needs a body). Śankara rejects this reasoning by holding to the aforementioned distinction between the commenced and uncommenced fruits of karma. The knower does not permanently bear fruits of uncommenced karma (causing an endless series of embodiments); delay in separation from the body is only for the time it takes to experience already manifesting fruits. The body is like an arrow once launched: its momentum both necessarily continues for a time and inevitably diminishes and ceases.30 Further, all other karma possibly leading to another body, both those with uncommenced fruits and those done after knowledge, are burnt by knowledge (and expiation).31 So since the brahman-knower doesn't reach final release while living, he must

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 377

be enjoying the commenced fruits of action; once a knower, no karma remains. For him delay is for only so long.

BāU I. 4. 7 and 10 put most strongly that, while knowledge halts almost all effects of ignorance, prärabdha karma is stronger than jñāna.32 Past action causing a body must bear fruit, so bodily and mental activity necessarily continue even after one obtains right knowledge just as the loosed arrow must finish its flight.33 The body, arising from actions caused by faults and perverse (viparīta) notions, bears fruits of a sort connected with these faults and notions, and until the body falls, it throws off the faults by enjoying their fruits.34 Prārabdha karma can even block jñāna from ever arising in this em- bodiment. Śankara writes in BS III. 4. 51 that vidyā rises in this birth if the means of knowledge is not blocked specifically by actions now bearing fruit (i.e. prārabdha karma); however, even if it is so blocked now, knowledge will rise in a future birth. Actions may need to bear fruit first, but once these fruits are experienced, liberation is assured eventually. The example given is that of Vāmadeva, who became brahman in the womb, showing that practice in a prior birth leads to knowledge in a later one (for a baby certainly doesn't practice in a womb). Sankara also refers to Gītā IV. 40 which says that no yoga or right action is wasted and Gita VI. 43-5 which says one gains the highest goal over many births.

In BS IV. 1. 15, Śankara again argues (in accord with the ChU śruti) that jñāna does not destroy all karma immediately, but he here adds that the rise of knowledge is actually aided by residual actions (karmā- śaya) whose effects have commenced. (This raises the issue of the dependence of jñāna on karma, to be dealt with soon.) This assistance also requires a waiting period for the cessation of the "momentum" (vega) of worldly existence, as the momentum of an abandoned whirling potter's wheel only gradually ceases. One might mention here (as numerous others have) that both the analogies of the potter's wheel (from Sānkhya Kārikā 67) and the loosed arrow above are problematic. Both wheel and arrow are real, but the body with prārabdha karma is part of avidyā. Unreal imagin- ings are not analogous to real things. On a related issue, B. N. K. Sharma has asked why karma not yet experienced at all wouldn't be

378 ANDREW O. FORT

even stronger (less "burnable") than partially experienced prārabdha karma.35 The BS IV. 1. 15 commentary also addresses the problem of why the body lasts even (but only) a little while after knowledge, briefly giving an answer much elaborated by later advaitins.36 While realizing the self cuts off all karma, a certain ignorance (mithyā-jñāna) con- tinues awhile due to the power of mental impressions (samskāra),37 as the impression of two moons persists in one with eye disease despite this person having the accurate knowledge that only one moon exists. Later advaitins debate at length how this impression, a mere effect of ignorance, is related to its cause. Finally, after giving śruti quotations and reasoning explaining why the body continues after knowledge, Sankara here turns to a kind of argument he rarely uses: the experience of the sages themselves. He states that the jñänin knows he is brahman even while his embodiment continues. How can any other person contradict one convinced in his heart of hearts that he knows brahman yet retains a body? Śankara again gives as an example the Gita's one with firm wisdom, the sthita- prajña.

JĪVANMUKTI AND REBIRTH

While the body continues for a time after knowledge, it is generally assumed the mukta is now at the end of the body series. He now remains only "as if" having a body - that is, it still appears, but is no longer thought to be real. Thus, two points are true simultaneously: immediate "merging" in brahman is only figurative, and yet the continual succession of bodies does now end (BāU IV. 4. 6-7).38 In BS III. 4. 51, however, Śańkara suggests release might be delayed for an embodiment or two, as some texts indicate. But if brahman-knowers can take on another body, why would they? Is there some reason beyond the power of prārabdha karma? Śańkara responds to this question in BS III. 3. 32, saying that certain liberated beings can take another body while an adhikāra (commission) exists due to the condition of the world. As we see the sun (in accord with its role) continue to shine for 1000 ages, then cease, or a brahman- knower continue until his already commenced karma ceases, so one

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 379

even with highest knowledge, when commissioned by the lord (to promulgate the Veda, etc.), continues to be embodied as long as the commission (and prarabdha karma) remains. One should note here that this conception of commission requiring re-embodiment is specifically addressed by Bādarāyana's sutra. While Śankara grants the idea here, he mentions it nowhere else (and adds that prärabdha karma must remain), which suggests that he is mostly responding to the demand of śruti. Śańkara continues by saying that brahman knowers move freely from one body to another to accomplish their commissions, while their residual actions (karmāsaya) bear fruit once and for all in due course.39 Śankara then addresses a question arising from this point. Can some new karma arise and produce yet further embodiment after currently manifesting residual karma (in this round of bodies) are consumed? If so, some karma with unburnt seed (versus only karma already manifesting) would remain after knowledge, and thus knowl- edge would not inevitably cause liberation. Śankara says this cannot be, as it is well-known from scripture (Mundaka II. 2. 8, ChU VII. 26. 2) that knowledge completely burns the seed of karma. Moksa follows jñāna without exception.40 Note that Sankara always returns to the point that prārabdha karma, and it alone, delays liberation.

We might here briefly consider if, upon taking rebirth, the liberated being has yoga-aiśvarya, or god-like powers. When discussing the possibility of the re-embodiment of brahman-knowers in BS III. 3. 32, Śankara says that such powers allow one to enter and superintend several bodies successively or simultaneously. The sage's power to enter many bodies (as one lamp can light many others) is also mentioned in BS IV. 4. 15. However, Śankara is careful to point out in III. 3. 32 that sages pursuing such powers later become detached from them after noticing the powers cease (i.e. are not eternal). Only then do they gain ātma-jñāna and attain final release (kaivalya).41 BS IV. 4. 16 emphasizes that attaining the state with divine powers is different from knowing ätman/brahman identity; the former is from the maturing (vipāka) of meditation (upāsana) on brahman with qualities (saguna). The latter is higher and it alone provides right insight which removes the possibility of return (BS IV. 4. 22).

380 ANDREW O. FORT

TEACHING AND JĪVANMUKTI

Another reason for holding to a delay in the body's fall post-knowl- edge is to allow for the existence of teachers who are liberated. Put in its strongest form, not only does teaching aid in bringing liberation, but unless liberated beings compassionately remain here to teach, we cannot know about liberation at all. The view that jīvanmuktas stay to share their realization appears repeatedly in later advaita. Śańkara however does not often make this argument, and the idea that teachers are necessary in fact contradicts the notion that śruti by itself can bring full knowledge. Still, following ChU VI. 14. 2 he states that a teacher leads one to liberation by taking off the blindfold of delusion (that "I am a body" by indicating one is really the self).42 Śankara waxes eloquent here, saying that the blindfold includes desires for many objects and bonds to wife, child, and friend.43 The brahman- established teacher, supremely compassionate and meritorious, then shows this ignorant person that the transmigratory path is flawed, saying "you are not a transmigrating thing, so what of being a son or possessing the dharma? You are that (brahman)!" Freed by the teacher from the blindfold of delusion, the person becomes happy, arriving at the self as the formerly blindfolded man quickly arrives at home. The importance of the teacher is also made apparent in Śankara's famous example (in BãU II. 1. 20) of the prince abandoned at birth in a forest and raised by (and as) a hunter, both being ignorant of his royal lineage. Similarly, the embodied being, not knowing it is the self, follows the path of embodiment and transmigration, thinking "I am a body/sense entity, etc." with threefold desires for son, wealth, and heaven. Both the young hunter and the embodied being need awakening to their true natures (being a prince and supreme brahman respectively) by a compassionate teacher. When properly instructed, the prince becomes fixed on the idea of royalty and the student on the idea of brahman.44

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 381

THE RELATIONSHIP OF KNOWLEDGE AND ACTION IN JĪVANMUKTI

It is well-known that Śankara holds to utter non-conjunction between knowledge and action. But, as we have seen, if knowledge immediately and completely destroys all karma, this would disallow living libera- tion. One remains in the body because prärabdha karma is stronger than knowledge. One can go further: jñāna is also dependent on the mass of karma to create a body in which to become liberated. Śańkara says this explicitly in a couple of places: you need a body for knowl- edge to arise (BS IV. 1. 15, BãU III. 9. 28). In fact, the world is the means for experiencing the fruits of one's karma (so liberation can then arise), and the purpose of going from body to body is to experi- ence these fruits.45 While knowledge alone causes liberation, embodied action is necessary to gain liberation for two other reasons: one must not only experience fruits of karma here, but to reach liberation one also needs to perform certain actions in this body. These actions, which remove obstacles to brahma-jñāna, are duties tied to caste and lifestage. While Sankara does not emphasize the role of caste and lifestage in this context, neither does he avoid addressing the issue. For example, in BS III. 4. 26, he responds to the apparent contradic- tion that knowledge is independent of action and yet dependent on performing certain duties. He says that knowledge, once arisen, attains its result (liberation) independently, but it depends on some actions (like sacrifice) to arise. This point is made clearer in BS IV. 1. 18, where he states that rites like the agnihotra, performed with or without meditations (vidyās) in this or a prior life, cause brahman realization if done with liberation as the aim. Activities like rites destroy sins acquired because the realization of brahman is blocked - that is, certain dharmic actions can remove other actions which block knowledge, so these actions indirectly cause liberation (which arises directly only from knowledge). Rites and actions like hearing, reflection, and devotion are therefore proximate (antaranga) causes bringing the same result (i.e. liberation) as brahma-vidya. Thus again, the need to perform some

382 ANDREW O. FORT

actions and to experience the fruits of other actions lead to the conclusion that one gains liberation while (and only while) living.

LIBERATION AND THE PATH TO HEAVEN

Does the liberated being aim for and reach heaven? Śankara discusses the path to heavenly worlds in many places (see especially BS IV). However he also repeatedly says knowing brahman (the aim and achievement of the jīvanmukta) is very different from reaching the world of brahma, or svarga. This world is reached by correct dharmic action, and as seen above, Sankara is generally committed to the non- connection between knowledge and action (jñāna-karma-asamuccaya). The differing routes of actions leading to heaven and knowledge bringing liberation are addressed in BaU III. 5. 1, which mentions two types of mendicancy (parivrājya). One type uproots all desires and is a limb of ātma-jñāna; the other leads to the world of brahma. This lower type of mendicancy is for the ignorant, for whom regulations like the sacred thread matter. The self-knower, transcending desires and aban- doning all actions, is the highest (paramahamsa) mendicant.46 Only the highest mendicant could be a jivanmukta, since no knowledge but that of nondual brahman can bring liberation. All other vidyā is a "meditation" on brahman with qualities (saguna) which will bring fruits like heavenly life. As the BS III. 4. 52 commentary puts it, only the highest ("surpassing", utkrsta) vidyā is "really" knowledge, other inferior (nikrsta) or qualified (saguna) vidyās arise from activities like meditation. Since different qualities exist, saguna vidyās and their results can be different. These various means to the highest knowledge might have degrees and be faster or slower, but the highest knowledge, and its fruit liberation, cannot have difference. Śankara adds in BS I. 1. 12 that meditations (vidyās, upāsana) cause attainment only of lower saguna brahman (i.e. heaven) in stages (kramamukti) versus the immediate (i.e. living) liberation (sadyomukti) caused by ātma-jñāna. In Katha VI. 15, he says that middling (manda) brahman-knowers practicing the lower vidyas are fit only for transmigration or the world of brahma, and thus śruti describes another path (cutting the knots of the heart by Self-realization) in order to praise the highest (brahman) vidyā. Finally, as said earlier, one can attain god-like powers (aiśvarya)

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 383

from the maturing (vipaka) of meditations, but not liberation (BS IV. 4.16).47 Śankara's main aim here seems to be to define following the lower vidyās as a form of activity leading to heaven (vs. knowing nondual brahman), whereas the earlier, more approving, reference to per- formance of and even dependence on certain actions (especially sacrifice) is related to their ability to remove obstacles to gaining highest brahman (the goal of jīvanmukti).

LIVING LIBERATION AND IMMORTALITY

The relationship of liberation and heaven is associated with the question of the immortality of the liberated being. As mentioned earlier, Sankara must deal with numerous Upanisadic references to gaining immortality when desires cease (BāU IV. 4. 7, Katha VI. 14- 5, Mund III. 2. 6). Because he wants to move beyond the notion of heaven as the highest end, and to separate all activity from the highest knowledge, Śankara repeatedly deemphasizes the Upanisadic concep- tion of physical imperishability, and frames immortality as becoming one with brahman. For example, when BaU IV. 4. 14 states "the igno- rant suffer and are destroyed, and the knowers are immortal", Śankara writes that we are immortal because we know ätman is brahman (but the ignorant get death unceasingly). Most significantly for us, this re- casting of the notion of immortality allows for living liberation, since one gains knowledge (i.e. immortality) while embodied. The clearest example of Sankara's effort to adapt concrete or corporeal Upanisadic terminology to his aims occurs when Katha VI. 14-5, Mundaka II. 2. 8 and III. 2. 9 refer to cutting the knots in the heart,48 which makes one immortal and one then gains brahman here.49 Śankara interprets "immortality" to mean the attainment of knowledge and mortality as action, desire, and ignorance, rather than as a bodily state. In Katha VI. 15, Sankara writes that the heart's knots, cut here even while living, are notions of ignorance (which are the roots of desire). These notions are indicated by statements like "I am this body", "this wealth is mine", or "I am happy/sad". The knots/ notions (and the desires rooted in them) are destroyed by knowing brahman/ätman identity opposed to the above. This knowledge mani-

384 ANDREW O. FORT

fests in the thought "I am indeed brahman and not a transmigrating being." Thus one becomes brahman even while living by the complete severing of the knots of ignorance through realising the pervasive, dis- tinctionless self.50 Mundaka III. 2. 5 describes brahman-knowers established in the self as entering all (when the body drops, Śankara adds). III. 2. 6 says such knowers, having done samnyāsa, gain immortality at their final departure. Śankara once again takes the Upanisadic language indi- cating physical state change to mean becoming one with brahman. He says samnyāsa here means being established in brahman alone51 and immortality is becoming brahman even while living. Pervasive and partless brahman has no spatial limits like going (to heaven) which is the object of samsāra. In addition to mentioning the immortality derived from cutting the knots in the heart, Mundaka III. 2. 9 again says that whoever knows the highest brahman becomes brahman, crossing over grief and evil (and Śankara again adds "even while living").52 Thus to Sankara, going to heaven is a lower, karma-bound path and true immortality is knowing brahman.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, let us summarize Sankara's main points concerning liberation while living. As said above, his characterization of a liberated being is only implicit, although the Gita's sthita-prajña or the Upadeśasāhasrī's ācārya seem close approximations. Here and else- where Śankara stresses that liberation arises from knowledge of nonduality or brahman/ätman identity.53 A key part of this knowledge is the realization that the real you is not the body (including mind and senses) but the eternal unchanging self. Śankara rejects the notions that liberation is inherently related to the end of physical embodiment or gaining physical immortality in heaven. In fact, believing you are embodied causes embodiment. You become bodiless and immortal when you know only the self and not your body is immortal. Further, liberation (and therefore bodilessness) is not a result of action. Actions like meditation bring lower, qualified brahman and attainment of heavenly worlds. Still, one needs a body both to gain liberation and to perform certain actions which help clear the way for

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 385

the highest knowledge. Once one gains liberation, all past uncom- menced karma is burnt, and no new activity will bind. Yet one still remains in the body awhile due to the only gradually but inevitably decreasing momentum of karma currently bearing fruit, and when these fruits finish manifestation, the body drops. The jīvanmukta might (but doesn't have to) teach and, in rare and extraordinary cases, a liberated being might return to perform a commission.54 Thus, as Śankara writes in ChU VI. 14. 2, one knows brahman in the body and attains it upon release from the body. Therefore his views certainly support the idea that one gains liberation while (in fact only while) living.

NOTES

1 Numerous works have been written dealing with jivanmukti in advaita, and they naturally discuss Sankara's contribution at some length. The interested reader could begin with A. G. Krishna Warrier's The Concept of Mukti in Advaita Vedānta (Madras: Univ. Madras, 1961), S. K. Ramachandra Rao's Jīvanmukti in Advaita (Bangalore: IBH Prakashana, 1979), Chacko Valiaveetil's Liberated Life (Madurai: Dialogue Series, 1980), or by consulting Karl Potter's The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Vol. III: Advaita Vedānta (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981). 2. While, as usual, his Brahmasūtra (BS) bhäsya is the most important source for his views, he also addresses relevant issues in the Brhadāranyaka (BāU), Chāndogya (ChU), Katha, and Mundaka Upanisad commentaries. 3 Pāramārthikam kūtasthanityam vyomavat sarvavyāpi sarvakriyārahitam nityatrptam niravayavam svayamjyotih svabhāvam. 4 On occasion Śankara uses kaivalya (literally, "isolation") as a synonym for moksa, but it is significant that advaitin liberation (knowing ätman/brahman identity) is more positive that mere monadistic isolation. Yogic kaivalya suggests that only freedom from embodiment brings freedom from suffering (the final goal). 5 In BS IV. 4. 2, he adds that moksa is a "fruit" only in reference to the cessation of knowledge, not in reference to the arising of any new result, as is the case with karma. Śankara is always careful to keep separate the results of knowledge and action. Moksa is also called the death of (transmigratory) death (BāU III. 3. 1) and brahman-knowers are said to be immortal (BaU IV. 4. 14). For more on how Śankara deals with the Upanisadic language of immortality, see page 45. 6 A number of well-known Upanisadic texts are quoted in support of this view: "neti, neti" (BāU III. 9. 26), "where one sees no other" (ChU VII. 24. 1), "this all is the self" (BāU II. 4. 6), and so on. 7 An issue worth mentioning here which is directly addressed only by later advaitins is the fact that when we look at actual jīvanmuktas, we see differences along with similarities - some seem more detached than others and/or detached about different things. So how is liberation one, without distinctions or degrees? The answer is that

386 ANDREW O. FORT

seeing diffference is in our seeing. The wise know liberation is one, however it looks to us. 8 BS I. 1. 12 specifies this knowledge as immediate liberation (sadyomukti), as opposed to gradual (krama) liberation which arises from "meditation" (upāsana) - more on this later. 9 This point is significant in part because of Sankara's wish to decouple knowledge and action. See p. 43. 10 In BāU IV. 4. 7, he reiterates that one attains brahman here so liberation is not dependent on going to some other place (like heaven). 11 Still, the mukta is at the end of the body series and does not transmigrate as before. 12 Unlike the attainment of a heavenly world which is uncertain since it happens only after one experiences the fruits of actions. 13 This passage speaks of the knower as ātmakāma, āptakāma, niskāma, and akāma. Desire is the root of transmigratory existence, causing limitation and connection with karma, while desirelessness causes liberation. 14 Other qualities indicate proper understanding of caste and life-stage. This is of course reminiscent of, and expands on, the fourfold sadhana discussed in BS I. 1. 1. 15 A little later in the passage, Sankara writes he should teach śrutis instructing the unity of the self, such as "this being is one without a second" (ChU VI. 2. 1), "the self is all this" (ChU VII. 25. 2), "all this is brahman" (ChU III. 14. 1), etc. 16 See also Mundaka III. 2. 6 on the jīvanmukta as samnyāsin. 17 For a good introduction to this issue, see Sawai, Y. "Sankara's Theory of Samnyasa." Journal of Indian Philosophy 14 (4) (1986): 371-87. 18 Śankara substitutes the term "moksa" for "nirvāna" in V. 24, 25, and 26, as well as II. 71-2. He is clearly not comfortable with "brahma-nirvāna". 19 Something similar is said in ChU VIII. 12. 1: aśarīratva is from vidyā and saśarīratva is from avidyā. 20 This idea is emphasized in Sankara's best-known "original" work, the Upadeśasā- hasrī. Verse X. 6 states that since bodiless, I have neither virtue nor vice, caste nor life-stage. XV. 6 says bodilessness is not a fruit of action (which causes connection with the body). According to XVII. 6, actions are based on caste, which belongs to the body. 21 Both Väcaspati Miśra's Bhāmatī and Änandagiri follow Śankara rather closely here. They elaborate some points and add some illustrations, but little new ground is broken. In Vācaspati Miśra's case, this seems to indicate a certain lack of interest in the jivanmukti doctrine, since he does not follow Sankara so closely on every issue. 22 Anandagiri here says that such a being is a jīvanmukta, in a body (dehastha), but not transmigrating (a samsāri). 23 Here as elsewhere, Upanisadic language links knowledge and cessation of desire with immortality, a physical state Sankara wants to deemphasize. More on this p. 45. 24 This account appears in numerous places, including BS III. 3. 32, IV. 1. 15, 19, BāU I. 4. 7, 10, IV. 4. 6-7, and ChU VI. 14. 2. 25 BS IV. 1. 15, BU I. 4. 10. Further, future evil notions do not arise for the knower since they have no support. 26 The terminology for kinds of karma is later formalized as āgāmī (future fruit- producing activity), prärabdha (currently manifesting actions), and samcita (the mass of previously accumulated actions).

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 387

27 ChU VI. 14. 2 adds that anārabdha karma is also burnt by expiatory acts (prāya- ścitta). 28 here suggesting final release. 29 called ksema, or "ease" in IV. 1. 15. 30 This analogy is also used in BS III. 3. 32 and BāU I. 4. 7 and 10. 31 He quotes Gīta IV. 37 here: "the fire of knowledge turns all actions to ashes." 32 This view is echoed strongly in Vidyāranya's Jivanmuktiviveka. We shall look at the relationship between knowledge and action more closely shortly. 33 When knowledge is weaker than already commenced karma, the memory stream of atma-jnana must be controlled by the power of sadhanas like renunciation and detachment. This action-centered approach is of course only enjoined as an alter- native depending on the circumstance. 34 In BS IV. 1. 19, Sankara adds that although seeing difference continues after full insight it will not continue after the body falls, since the cause of seeing difference before the body falls (the enjoyment of prärabdha karma) ceases at death. 35 B. N. K. Sharma. The Brahmasutras and their Principal Commentaries. Vol. III. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1978. 36 including his commentators Väcaspati and Anandagiri. 37 See also the brief reference to commenced samskāras in ChU III. 14. 4. Vācaspati Miśra here mentions the later oft-used analogy of samskäras being like the trembling that continues awhile even after a snake is realized to be truly a rope. Trembling and samskāras inevitably but only gradually cease after fear and karma cease. 38 In BS II. 1. 8, Sankara adds muktas are not reborn since right insight removes delusive "knowledge" (mithyā-jñāna). This is as opposed to deep sleep or a world dissolution (pralaya) in which ignorance and its adjuncts (upādhi) remain. 39 Vācaspati Miśra follows Śankara rather closely here, as usual. He stresses the necessity of experiencing the fruits of prärabdha karma before gaining liberation. He also uses unSankaran terminology in emphasizing the immediate experience (anubhāva, sāksātkāra) of nondual reality (advaita-tattva). 40 This topic is addressed in similar fashion is BS IV. 1. 19. Karma can produce other fruits after the fall of the body only when supported by mithyā-jñāna. False "knowledge" has been burnt away by full insight however. Thus, when a knower's already commenced activity ceases, kaivalya is inevitable. 41 Ānandagiri underlines that jñāna, and not aiśvarya, brings liberation. 42 Sankara also addresses this issue in his coments on Gita IV. 34, suggesting one approach a teacher (acarya) and ask what is bondage and liberation, knowledge and ignorance. The knower-teacher will respond, and only knowledge taught by those with right insight will bring peace. 43 He then describes some of the "thousands of attachments" of the ignorant person who thinks "I am son of x and related to y, I am happy/sad, foolish/wise, born/aged/ dead; my son is dead, wealth gone, I am destroyed. How shall I live? Where shall I go? Etc." 44 Teaching others can be seen as an aspect of "social concern" (i.e. Western-style "doing good"), or in more Indian terms, protecting (samgraha) and favoring (anugraha) the world. Many modern advaitin scholars in particular argue that jivan- muktas are socially concerned, performing good works for others. Much could be said about this, and the topic will figure prominently in a manuscript on which I am working which deals with jivanmukti in the advaitin

388 ANDREW O. FORT

tradition. Here one can only say that social concern is not emphasized in the classical advaitin tradition, and one could argue that when one sees no duality, there are no others (or "society") to be concerned about. Śankara does not emphasize the knower's solicitude for others, although he does refer to it on occasion. In the Upadesasāhasrī Prose I. 6 description of the teacher, the compassionate concern for helping others is twice mentioned. The BaU III. 3. 32 commentary states that the liberated being may stay in the body to teach the Veda. In two other passages, Sankara mentions that the brahman knower proclaims the oneness of the self (Tait. III. 10. 5-6) or continues in everyday activity (pravrtti) (Gītā II. 10) for the welfare of the world. 45 BaU IV. 3. 36. We have also seen that the Gita points out that even the advanced yogin takes many lives to gain perfection (VI. 42-5) 46 Among the many passages where Sankara argues at length for the utter separation between knowledge and action, one can look at BaU III. 3. 1 or IV. 5. 15. It will suffice here to mention that the latter commentary points out that activity is for the ignorant although while ignorance persists, mendicancy and renunciation are recommended for those desirous of liberation. See also BS III. 4. 20 and ChU II. 23. 1 on this. 47 On the other hand, Sankara does say, in BaU IV. 4. 8 and elsewhere, that brahman knowers, being free, go to heavenly worlds after the fall of the body. 48 Katha VI. 14 actually refers to the departing of the heart's desires, which Śankara says are seated in the intellect (buddhi) and not the self. 49 Mundaka II. 1. 10 puts it the other way: one who knows the supreme immortal brahman existing in the heart destroys the knot of ignorance here (i.e. while living). Both Katha VI. 14 and Mundaka III. 2. 6 say that becoming brahman here is like the blowing out of a lamp. 50 Śankara refers back to BāU IV. 4. 6 here: being brahman, he merges in brahman. Mundaka II. 2. 8 (and Śankara's commentary on it) largely echo the Katha VI passage. It adds all doubts are cut, and Sankara reiterates that actions with un- commenced fruits are destroyed, but not those with fruits now manifesting. 51 A similar notion is mentioned in his commentary on the sthita-prajña in the Gitā. 52 This passage also says, following Māndūkya Upanisad 10 (and Gītā VI. 41-2) that no nonknower of brahman is born in the knower's family. 53 In addition to knowing brahman, the liberated being is said to be desireless, detached from works, and concerned for others. 54 Such a being might now have and use supernatural powers, but these powers are not as significant as or essential to brahma-jñāna.

WORKS CONSULTED

Śańkara (1983). Bhagavadgītā Bhāsya. A. G. Krishna Warrier, trans. Madras: Ramakrishna Math. Śankara (1980). Brahmasūtra-śankarabhāsyam. J. L. Shastri, ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Śankara (1977). The Brahmasūtra Bhāsya of Šankarācārya. Swami Gambhirananda, trans. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.

ŚAŃKARA ON JĪVANMUKTI 389

Śankara (1975). The Brhadāranyaka Upanisad with the commentary of Sankarācārya. Swami Madhavanandà, trans. 5th ed. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Śankara (1965). Eight Upanisads with the Commentary of Sankarācārya. Swami Madhavanandà, trans. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama. Śankara (1978), Iśādidaśopanisadah Śankarabhāsyasametah. Delhi: Motilal Banar- sidass. Śańkara (1961). Upadeśasāhasrī of Śrī Śankarācārya. Swami Jagadananda, trans. Madras: Ramakrishna Math.

Texas Christian University Fort Worth, TX 76129