[Advaita-l] What is Jivanmukti - a survey of perspectives.

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste All,  Please take the time to review below and comment.  This seems
to be a noteworthy presentation of the issue regardless of anyone's
opinion. *Detailed Summary: The Debate on **Jīvanmukti, Prārabdha Karma,
and the Nature of Liberation in Advaita Vedānta*
------------------------------
*I. Central Question: Is the Jīvanmukta Truly Embodied Post-Gnosis?*

Śaṅkarācārya addresses this question in the *Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya* (BSB),
particularly in *BSB 4.1.15*, by explaining:

   -

   *Knowledge (jñāna)* destroys *avidyā* and thus *anārabdha karma*
   (unfructified), but *not prārabdha karma* (already begun).
   -

   The *physical existence* of the jīvanmukta is explained as a
   continuation driven solely by the momentum of prārabdha karma—analogous to:
   -

      An *arrow* continuing in flight after being released (BSB 3.3.32),
      -

      Or a *potter’s wheel* spinning after the potter stops turning it.
      -

   Liberation is *inevitable* once knowledge arises (*CU 6.14.2*), but the
   body may persist *temporarily*.

------------------------------
*II. The Apparent Duality of the Jīvanmukta's Experience*

   -

   Śaṅkara uses an analogy: *a person with corrected vision may still see
   double* (e.g., two moons) briefly—similarly, the jīvanmukta continues to
   experience duality due to lingering bodily karma, *not due to ignorance*.
   -

   *BSB 4.1.19* reiterates that *experience (bhoga)* exhausts prārabdha,
   after which full identification with Brahman is “realized.”

------------------------------
*III. PSA Interpretation: Sub-Commentators and the Realization-Residual
Theory*

Later Advaitic thinkers from the *Post-Śaṅkara Advaita (PSA)* tradition
developed this into a *doctrine of residual ignorance*:

   -

   *Vimuktātman* (*Iṣṭa-Siddhi* 1.9): Claims a *real remnant of avidyā*
   remains in the jīvanmukta.
   -

   *Sarvajñātman* (*Sārasaṅgraha* 4.42): Uses analogies like *fragrance
   (gandha)*, *shadow (chāyā)*, *residue*, or *saṁskāra* to describe
   leftover moha.
   -

   *Citsukha*: Proposes three types of ignorance, only two of which are
   destroyed by knowledge; the third allows for *continued embodiment*.
   -

   *Prakāśātman* (*Pañcapādikāvivaraṇa*): The mukta may *“slip into”
   dvaita-darśana*, acting and perceiving in the world.
   -

   *Madhusūdana Sarasvatī* (and his commentator *Brahmānanda Sarasvatī*):
   Hold that *videhamukti (liberation after death)* is *parama-mukti*, a
   *superior* and final liberation.

These thinkers collectively uphold that *liberation while living is
provisional* or *incomplete*, with *true mokṣa attained only after death*—which
*contradicts the immediate-finality view of Śaṅkara*.
------------------------------
*IV. Critique by Andrew Nelson (1996): Philosophical and Theological
Implications*

   -

   Nelson critiques PSA interpretations for *not qualifying their views
   ontologically* (i.e., failing to distinguish vyāvahārika from
   pāramārthika).
   -

   He claims they reduce jīvanmukti to a *Sāṃkhya-like waiting room*:
*liberation
   deferred* until physical death.
   -

   This misreading, Nelson argues, *undermines the radical Advaitic claim*
   that *knowledge fully and immediately annihilates ignorance*, making
   mokṣa possible *here and now*.

------------------------------
*V. Satchidanandendra Saraswati’s (SSS) Intervention: Return to Śaṅkara’s
True Intent*

SSS strongly opposes PSA views and proposes a *radical corrective* grounded
in a strict reading of Śaṅkara:
1. *BSB 4.1.15 Is Not Literal but Adhyāropa*

   -

   According to SSS, BSB 4.1.15 is *not a metaphysical claim*, but a *didactic
   superimposition (adhyāropa)* made *only from the empirical (vyāvahārika)
   standpoint*.
   -

   It is meant to *counter wrong notions*—such as the belief that mokṣa
   occurs *only after death*.
   -

   Thus, *jīvanmukti is not an ontological condition*, but a *pedagogical
   device* to dissolve misconceptions.

2. *Sublation of Adhyāropa: Apavāda in BSB 1.1.4, 3.3.32, 3.2.21*

   -

   *BSB 1.1.4*: Śaṅkara affirms that *embodiment is purely misconceived*;
   the self has *never* been embodied.
   -

   *BSB 3.3.32*: Liberation is *immediate with right knowledge* and does *not
   require death*.
   -

   *BSB 3.2.21*: The world *vanishes like a dream* with the arising of
   knowledge—this too is *not literal*, but an *apavāda* meant to sublate
   earlier pedagogical constructs.

3. *Videhamukti as Mere Negation of Transmigration*

   -

   In *BSB 4.1.14*, Śaṅkara acknowledges liberation after death but *redefines
   it* in *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya* (BUB 4.4.6):
   -

      Upon death, there is *no new state*; *nothing changes* for the knower
      of Brahman.
      -

      Videhamukti means only the *absence of rebirth*, not the *attainment
      of liberation at death*.

------------------------------
*VI. Core Philosophical Implication per SSS*

   -

   Both *adhyāropa and apavāda* are *methodical and false statements*,
   meant only to *dismantle ignorance*, *not establish new doctrines*.
   -

   To claim that *ignorance remains in some form* after knowledge is to *reify
   ignorance* and *deny* the fundamental Advaitic view that *mokṣa is
   always and already accomplished*.
   -

   *Jīvanmukti is not a state attained* but a *description of the falsity
   of bondage*.

------------------------------
*VII. Final Takeaway*

   -

   For Śaṅkara (as SSS reads him), the discourse on jīvanmukti and
   videhamukti is *not ontological*—it is *pedagogical*.
   -

   The idea of a liberated being living in the world, or liberation
   happening after death, are *strategic fictions* used to correct
   misunderstandings.
   -

   Mokṣa, or liberation, is *immediate*, *complete*, and *not dependent* on
   the exhaustion of karma or physical death.
   -

   The PSA’s attempt to “clarify” jīvanmukti inadvertently *undermines
   Śaṅkara’s non-dualism* by *injecting realism* into what should
remain a *methodological
   fiction*.

------------------------------