|
ADVAITA MEANS NON-DUALITY “Jivanmukti in transformation” by Andrew O. Fort.
Part 1 : The traditional Advaitic conception
Here I will focus on the
traditional Advaitic, not the neo-Vedantic, conception. In traditional
Advaita (nondual) Vedanta, liberation (moksa, mukti) is, broadly,
release from bondage to the cycle of transmigratory existence (samsara).
This realm of phenomenal appearance is experienced by embodied beings due
to ignorance (avidya) of their true nature; this ignorance causes
desire-filled action (karma) continually binding them to the
transmigratory cycle. One gains release through immediate knowledge (vidya,
jnana) of partless, pervasive, unchanging, and self-luminous reality
known as Brahman. Brahman is realized to be one's true self (atman),
this self is not tied to the body or intellect and is free from all
limitation and sorrow. Such knowledge rises through proper understanding
of sacred texts, not by devotion or works.
Jivanmukti
is knowing, while still in the body, that you are really the eternal
nondual self (which is Brahman), and knowing further that the self
is never embodied, since the body (and all world appearance) is not
ultimately real. Somewhat like a reflection in a mirror, the world appears
and exists, but it is not finally real. One is bound to the realm of
transmigratory existence by (karma-bearing) ignorance, not by the
body, and liberation arises from knowledge, not from dropping the body.
Knowledge alone is the necessary and sufficient condition for liberation.
Thus our problem is not the presence of a body, but identification of the
quality (less) self with the conditioned body. Believing you are the body,
and that the body is real, is the cause of (re)-embodiment. Since
destroying this idea that the self is embodied, not the fall of the body,
brings liberation, we can conclude that knowing the self's identity with Brahman
does not contradict bodily existence though cessation of ignorance
will eventually bring eternal release from the body.
If,
from this perspective, the one true liberation is freedom from the bonds
of ignorance, then the presence or absence of the body is (in a sense)
irrelevant. However, looking more closely, a (human) body is in fact
useful and even necessary, since it provides the vehicle for liberation.
One might underline here that Advaitins say little about the liberation of
divine beings. In his chapter in Living Liberation in Hindu Thought,
Lance Nelson makes a fascinating argument, never made within Advaita, for
regarding Advaitic isvara as a jivanmukta, as both are free
from ignorance and egoism, although the jivanmukta is not a
cosmic creator or controller and has a trace of karma remaining. In
the Bhagavad-Gita, the person with firm wisdom, is said to act with egoless detachment, like
Krishna himself. Perhaps
even more interesting is the idea that isvara, like the jivanmukta,
is limited by being in samsara: he is constrained by the karma
of creatures and the necessity of conforming to name and form arising
from ignorance (as mentioned in Sankara's commentary on Brahmasutra
II. 1. 14). Thus, as Nelson writes, isvara is, "like the jivanmukta,
liberated but somehow not yet fully liberated." Both await final
bodiless (videha) release, but the lord will actually have to wait
far longer than a human. Such an unwelcome conclusion is perhaps why this
idea was never explored within the tradition. This tension is related to the fact that the notion of liberation solely as knoediate liberation (sadyomukti), annihilating all karma, including the body. Since the body does not cease when knowledge rises, ignorance of some form must remain, and how can there be avidya post-vidya? This question can be said to be the central problem in the Advaitic conception of jivanmukti. It is so serious because Advaitins largely accept that there is total opposition between, rather than degrees of, knowledge and ignorance. They sometimes use the analogy of the opposition of dwledge of brahman/atman identity is quite different from another important Indian conception of liberation that finds resonances in Advaita: that of mukti as freedom from the inevitable suffering of transmigratory existence samsara) or as the absence of pain. This more "negative" idea of liberation generally requires some form of world renunciation that normally includes some kind of yogic practice and ends in perfect isolation of the spirit. From this perspective, the body is quite a significant limitation, since only when free from embodiment can one gain freedom from suffering (the final goal). Still, until we reach what I call the "Yogic Advaita" of the Yogavasistha and the Jivanmuktiviveka, the relative absence of reference to yogic practices and meditation is remarkable. I will point out later that to Advaitins like Sankara, meditation is a helpful support for attaining liberating Brahman knowledge, but it is still an action of a deluded individual agent in the dualistic realm of means and ends.
The
notion of liberation as absence of suffering and sorrow (and thus
embodiment) raises an important question: If liberated, why is one still
in a body? From the earliest Upanisads on, many strands of the
Hindu tradition shared the notion that being embodied impedes release and
that death brings it. Despite the Advaita position that knowledge and not
embodiment is the key issue, a thoughtful reader can argue that a
rationale for continued embodiment is needed to satisfy both reason and
experience. Experience seems to show that embodiment inevitably entails
suffering, disease, and seeing illusory duality. It is reasonable to hold
that none of these should exist for a truly liberated being.
Holding
to embodied liberation also presents some problems for basic Advaitic
doctrines. To Advaitins, the body is a result of prior activity (karma),"
which is part of ignorance (avidya), and thus is in some sense
opposed to knowledge (vidya). Gaining knowledge of nondual Brahman
is said to destroy ignorance, thus it should bring light. Yet while light
and darkness can be said to be opposed, one can also point to twilight,
and other degrees of light and dark. This response is, of course, an
argument from everyday experience, used to counter a
theoretical problem.
Advaitin
Rationales for Embodiment after Liberation
There
are at least three answers to the problem of the continuity of embodiment
post-realization, an issue that received a great deal of attention in
later Advaita. The first answer is that you are "bodiless" while
embodied, when you know the self is not the body. As Sankara states in his
BS I. 1.4 commentary, embodiment (sasariratva) is caused by
ignorance, that is, identifying body and self. Knowing that the eternal
self is not and never was embodied shows one is by nature eternally
bodiless (asrira), so the knower is in a sense asarira while
living (or "bodiless" while embodied). Bodilessness is complete
detachment, not lack of a physical body. As BdUTV. 4. 7 states, the
body is to a Brahman-knower like a castoff skin is to a snake. Put
another way, the body "disappears" for the knower (as in sleep
or lose consciousness, swoon), although the knower's body doesn't
disappear. The second answer focuses on a more practical point: jivanmukti exists so that we can learn from enlightened teachers, who compassionately remain in a body to assist ignorant humans. Sankara mentions such teachers in Chandogya Upanisad bhasya VI. 14. 2 (the acarya who removes the blindfold of delusion that one is a body) and BaU bhasya II. 1. 20 (the young hunter [embodied being] is awakened to his true nature as a prince [supreme Brahman] by a teacher). Vimuktatman, following Sankara, adds Gita IV. 34, which says that only the wise sages who realize the truth teach the highest knowledge. We could not know about (or reach) liberation unless enlightened teachers exist, and they could not exist if the body falls immediately after knowledge. This would at least be the case according to the all-or-nothing view of vidya. In everyday experience, we actually see many teachers without perfect knowledge helping those with even less knowledge. Also, if (as Advaitins argue) sruti reveals nondual Brahman, we could learn about moksa from a nonhuman source, interestingly, both Sarvajnatman (chapter 3) and Prakasananda argue for the idea that, from the highest perspective, the liberated teacher is only imagined yet can still bring liberation to the ignorant. Modem neo-Vedantins make much of the role of enlightened teachers, and add another rationale for a jivanmukta's continuing existence here to provide selfless social service to suffering humanity. There is little discussion of the idea that the liberated being would return to teach or help when the current embodiment ends. This certainly differentiates jivanmukti from the Buddhist bodhisattva ideal. Sankara opens this possibility once, in response to BS III. 3. 32, which suggests a being might take birth again if there is a commission (adhikara) to perform.
The
third explanation for the body's continuation after liberation is given
great attention in the later Advaita scholastic tradition. It begins with
the general rule that when Brahman is known, all ignorance (and
thus karma) is destroyed, so how can the karma-based body
continue? Later Advaitins assert that a remnant or trace of avidya
can exist even after one gains release; this remnant is based on karma
whose fruits have already commenced manifestation (prarabdha karma).
Before one's final disembodiment, one must experience "enjoy,"
the fruits of those actions, which cannot be removed by knowledge. Put
another way (following Sankara in Ch U bhasya VI. 14. 2), one can know
Brahman without quite yet attaining Brahman. This
interpretation is much elaborated on in later Advaita and requires further
explanation.
Most
important is that, for Advaitins, there are three kinds of karma, only
two of which are removed by knowledge. The first is samcita karma,
the accumulated mass of past karma that has not yet borne fruit.
Knowledge bums all such karma. The second is agami karma, karma
to be obtained in this life that would bear fruit in the future. After Brahman
knowledge, this karma will not bind, since the false notion of
agency has disappeared (so it seems that "backsliding" is not
possible). The third type of karma, mentioned earlier is currently
manifesting or prarabdha karma. Such karma, which produced the current
body, is not destroyed by knowledge and must bear fruit before the body
falls.
(This
is an excerpt from the book of Andrew O. Fort. “Jivanmukti in
transformation” it is a part of the Introduction – What is Jivanmukti?
- a very interesting book - State University of New York Press )
Glossary
11/04/09
To go back to the list of all the files, please click on this line |
