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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Michael ji,

I usually stay away from the "avidya - bhavarupa vs abhavarupa" debate due
to my personal opinion:
*My personal opinion on the nature of avidya:*
*Avidya is mithya and maya-svarupa and to be discarded. As maya-svarupa,
avidya is indeed capable of bhavarupa in regard to the creation of
plurality. But at the same time it is also capable of abhavarupa insomuch
that mere knowledge is sufficient to overcome it. Avidya in itself is
incapable of being determined definitively as either bhavarupa or
abhavarupa. A mistaken snake, when perceived as a snake is cognized as
bhavarupa (possessing distinct existence); but when the rope is realized,
the earlier said snake is recognized to be merely abhavarupa (lack of
knowledge). IMHO one is free to understand Avidya in either way to the
extent that one needs to transcend and discard avidya altogether. *But this
is just my current view.

Having said so, your presentation and summarization is intriguing,
particularly the summary of Section III thus stated - “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*.” *I seriously doubt if this is the
accurate summary of the PSA tradition acharya's teachings.*

*My suggestion to structure the debate:*

The core of the debate is the PSA teachings presented in Section III.
Criticisms and oppositions in Sections IV and V are clearly aimed at the
teachings communicated in Section III.

It would make more sense to do the following:





*1. On each individual email thread, pick a specific PSA quotation, with
its context, that seems contentious.2. Provide the interpretation of that
quotation, as understood / provided / explained by Shri SSS, Shri Andrew
Nelson (I don’t know this scholar) and other appropriate acharyas /
scholars.3. Provide the implications of that interpretation and how it
seems to conflict with Swami Sankaracharya’s core teachings.4. What are the
clarification / re-interpretation of that topic from the perspective of Sri
SSS and other appropriate acharyas / scholars, to avoid the conflict.*
At this point, the PSA proponents would be able to come up with, as a
defense:


*5. Any possible mis-readings or misunderstandings of the PSA quotation in
step 2 or further challenges to step 4, if any.*
With this it will be determined if the siddhanta conflict is actual or just
apparent due to a misunderstanding.

All these may have already been compiled in some books, but in the interest
of time, effort, participation and focus, it would help to pick these
quotations on individual threads.

prostrations,
Vikram


On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 5:59 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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*.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG_a75DPxw%2BGBic_P13Y99xJhC5K6FhqLf%2BhfHzkR5KWA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG_a75DPxw%2BGBic_P13Y99xJhC5K6FhqLf%2BhfHzkR5KWA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>