Liberation in early Advaita Vedanta
by Aleksandar Uskokov | 2018 | 195,782 words
This page relates 鈥榃inning the World of the Gods鈥� of the study named 鈥淪cripture and the Hermeneutics of Liberation in Early Advaita Vedanta鈥� which highlights how liberation (in Sanskrit: Moksha) is posited as the 鈥渉ighest good鈥濃�攊.e., it represents freedom from the cyclical process of birth and rebirth. It further shows that Shankara鈥檚 doctrine emphasizes that liberation is solely derived from knowledge of Brahman.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
7. Winning the World of the Gods
The third attainment is the worlds of the gods, deva-loka, culminating in the world of 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补 or brahma-loka, achieved through the northern course known to us from the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 account. The means of attaining this world is meditation on the so-called lower Brahman, to which ritual may be optionally added to form a variety of 箩帽腻苍补-karma-samuccaya, a combination of 鈥�knowledge鈥� and 鈥渁ction,鈥� that is, meditation and ritual. This attainment is, really, the equivalent of the state of liberation in the Brahma-厂奴迟谤补.
As I have already reminded us, the normative 痴别诲腻苍迟补 account of liberation presented by B膩d膩r膩ya峁嘺 in the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 envisioned a standard 产谤补丑尘补-惫颈诲测腻 arranged around an injunctive text.
The doctrine of 惫颈诲测腻 was explicitly modeled on the ritual, insofar as the individual 产谤补丑尘补-惫颈诲测腻s were formed by combining details from different texts, had the same standardized object鈥擝rahman鈥攁苍d involved the same attainment鈥�brahma-loka鈥攁chieved by ascending through the same northern course. The attainment was a specific place, achieved by motion. The process was meditative absorption on Brahman through any of the thus standardized 惫颈诲测腻s. The result involved enjoying the Vedic delectable objects: ancestors that manifest at will, garlands and perfumes, women, and carriages. Liberation itself consisted in winning sovereignty, 蝉惫腻谤腻箩测补, and pleasure, bhoga, which were directly derived from the seventh and eighth 辫谤补辫腻峁环补办补 of the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补, respectively.
I also said that for 艢补峁卥补谤补 this doctrine involved action of the mental kind because at the very least one had the choice to sit down and intentionally identify oneself with Brahman鈥攐r not. It was not a matter of knowing, but of doing, and doing was posterior to 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 and involved a host of personal and other factors. A sure sign that a text was not about liberation was if the text was injunctive. 鈥淜nowledge arises from reliable warrants and concerns the real nature of the thing. It can be neither produced nor blocked by a hundred 颈苍箩耻苍肠迟颈辞苍蝉.鈥�[1] Well, sure sign most of the time, as we shall see in Chapter Nine. Liberation, as we shall also see later, was just about knowing, a form of anamnesis, and had nothing to do with action of any kind.
See, for instance, his comment on the one of the 蝉奴迟谤补蝉 on meditation that I identified as crucial because of being pellucid, 4.1.7:
The consideration about sitting and the like does not arise, to begin with, regarding meditations that are related to ritual subsidiaries, because in that case they are dependent on the ritual [and regulated by its provisions]. It does not arise regarding perfect seeing either, because knowledge is dependent on the thing. It is, however, with regard to other kinds of meditation that it should be deliberated whether one should meditate without a specific rule鈥攕tanding, lying down or sitting鈥攐r strictly sitting.[2]
Knowledge qua knowledge cannot be scripturally regulated, because it follows the constitution of things, not some human, divine, or non-personal whim. 艢补峁卥补谤补, thus, cancelled out what 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 affirmed, and his distinction of knowledge and meditation in effect divided 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺鈥檚 产谤补丑尘补-惫颈诲测腻 into one leading to Brahman the effect, 办腻谤测补-brahma or 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补, as already suggested by 叠腻诲补谤颈, involving absorptive meditation and in which everything that we know from the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 account was fine and dandy, and another one concerning the pure Brahman, involving theological and philosophical reflection and a thoroughly reevaluated role of ritual. 艢补峁卥补谤补 continued using most of the same standard terms for both meditation and reflection: 惫颈诲测腻, 箩帽腻苍补, vi箩帽腻苍补, 诲补谤艣补苍补, 诲峁涐梗峁璱, even the one which was most clearly associated with meditation, 耻辫腻蝉补苍补,[3] but he explicitly drew the distinction when it had to be drawn and used terms such as samyag-诲补谤艣补苍补, 鈥減erfect seeing,鈥� and pairs such as para-惫颈诲测腻 and apara-惫颈诲测腻, 蝉补驳耻峁嘺-惫颈诲测腻 and 苍颈谤驳耻峁嘺-惫颈诲测腻, brahma-惫腻办测补 and 耻辫腻蝉补苍腻-惫腻办测补.[4]
There were a few other, equally important reasons why 艢补峁卥补谤补 denied that achieving brahma-loka was real liberation, most of which are commonly known and just what we would expect from him. Liberation is just being the Self, 蝉惫腻迟尘补苍测 补惫补蝉迟丑腻苍补峁� 尘辞办峁岣�, and is, thus, equivalent to the Self.[5] Ergo, liberation is omnipresent and non-different from the itinerant. The individual Selves are ultimately Brahman, so liberation cannot be something one could reach by going to another place, for it only makes sense to reach that which is separate from oneself.[6] Further, the reaching of brahma-loka presupposes duality鈥攁苍 agent, action, object of attainment鈥攁苍d with that it presupposes and reinforces ignorance. It also jeopardizes texts that affirm non-duality: they could only make sense if they were related to liberation, whereas the meditational texts would still be meaningful with brahma-loka as their independent attainment.[7]
But for our purposes here the important thing was that going to brahma-loka involved attaining the same Vedic desirable objects, 办腻尘补鈥攚omen and the like鈥攖hat one wished to attain prompted by desire. The essential difference was just that one did not have to return to the human realm as in the case of ritual and the southern course. In the old 痴别诲腻苍迟补 this was good enough a difference, since, as I argued, its disagreement with 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 was less on the attainment and more on the means. With 艢补峁卥补谤补, however, we reach here the point where a wedge is inserted in the Veda as a canon: on the one hand are things 办腻尘测补, geared towards attaining the common pleasurable objects in one of the three worlds through some form of action, and on the other hand there is the world which is the Self, attained solely through knowledge. Brahma-loka, the northern course, meditation and sovereignty and enjoyment were part of the first group. One was prompted by the same desires as defilements to attain desirable objects of the same kind.[8]
This was the top of what could be achieved pursuing 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈-dharma and promotion or abhyudaya as the human good toward which such dharma aimed.
Ritual, with or without the accompaniment of meditation, which this ignorant man, for whom the divisions of caste, order of life and so forth exist, and who is bound to those rites, performs, leads to promotion beginning with human birth and ending with identity with 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补.[9]
Introducing the path of the gods which is for obtaining the results in the lower meditations鈥�[10]
The course of the gods must be common to all meditations 鈥渨ith qualities鈥� that result in the attainment of promotion.[11]
Let us note this well: brahma-loka is at the top of the process of abhyudaya. What this meant was that the text which was front and center in the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 account of liberation, the dahara-惫颈诲测腻 of the eighth chapter of the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补, was not about liberation at all: it was about meditation that results in promotion. This was a profoundly troubling text for 艢补峁卥补谤补, not only because the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 took its account of liberation as the normative in all 产谤补丑尘补-惫颈诲测腻s, but because it infelicitously combined all kinds of things that 艢补峁卥补谤补 could not see hand in hand: the Self that is free from faults, old age, death, lamentation, hunger and thirst鈥攊n short, his own favorite description of the Self鈥攚ith 鈥渢rue鈥� desires and resolves, that meant the ability to have ancestors manifest themselves at one鈥檚 will, to have fun with women, carriages, garlands and perfumes, all predicated on the ability to move throughout the worlds without restriction.
For our ultimate mah膩-惫腻办测补 purposes, we should note that this separation of meditation that ultimately leads to brahma-loka meant that the central sentences in 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺鈥檚 产谤补丑尘补-惫颈诲测腻s, such as ya 腻迟尘腻 apahata-p膩pm膩 vijaro vim峁泃yur vi艣oko vijighatso '辫颈辫腻蝉补岣� satya-办腻尘补岣� 蝉补迟测补-蝉补峁卥补濒辫补岣� so 'nve峁ａ弓avya岣� sa vijij帽膩sitavya岣� of the dahara-惫颈诲测腻, could not possibly be the most important 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲ic statements, for the simple reason that their final attainment was not liberation. One gets the sense that 艢补峁卥补谤补 thinks such passages could be rectified for knowledge and liberation purposes, if read in the light of 驰腻箩帽补惫补濒办测补鈥檚 teaching of the Self, in which case the possession of unfailing desires and the like would not stand for what the meditator hopes to achieve, but for some form of praise of Brahman, and the injunctive force of the core statement would also fail to obtain.[12] We could say that 艢补峁卥补谤补 turned the table on 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺: we can rectify passages for coherence, but not the way 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 wanted.
This rejection of attaining brahma-loka as the equivalent to liberation meant going directly against the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补, so a saving grace was found in the idea of krama-mukti or gradual liberation, which was already there in the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 itself but was rejected by 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺. One could still achieve real liberation in brahma-loka if one became disillusioned with the idea of sovereignty and developed perfect knowledge of the Self, in which case one would still need to complete one鈥檚 term in brahma-loka鈥攋ust as the liberated aspirant on earth would have to wait till death for full liberation鈥攂ut would be then liberated along with 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补.
艢补峁卥补谤补 was explicit that the sovereignty won through meditation had to end with the expiry of the kalpa, and that the rise of perfect knowledge had to happen before one could be really liberated in brahma-loka.
Great sages may have been attached to other meditations [lit., knowledges] that result in sovereignty and the like. It makes sense that after [attaining brahma-loka] they became disillusioned on seeing that such sovereignty depletes and, becoming fully absorbed in knowledge of the Supreme Self, attained liberation.[13]
Those who have attained the world of Brahman that is the effect reach the supreme and pure state of 痴颈峁ａ箛耻 along with 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补, the ruler of the world, after the destruction of the world, their perfect vision having arisen there [in brahma-loka]. In this way, the notion of gradual liberation should be accepted from the text that speaks about non-return.[14]
One gets a sense from this last comment as well as from his interpretation of the last 蝉奴迟谤补 in the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 attributed to 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 that he trusted this sequence, from becoming disillusioned with sovereignty to developing perfect knowledge and getting liberated, was likely to happen in brahma-loka, but he was explicit that winning brahma-loka meant just avoiding rebirth till the next creation of the world: 鈥淚t is understood that they return after this kalpa.鈥�[15]
厂补谤惫补箩帽腻迟尘补苍 put the two eloquently together:
If a man, his mind full of desiring, attains 叠谤补丑尘腻 who sits on a lotus [i.e., 贬颈谤补峁噛补驳补谤产丑补] by a combination of ritual and meditation, he, being ignorant, attains again the human condition without transmigrating [that is, in the next cycle of creation]. If, on the other hand, he comes to know the Supreme Self there [in brahma-loka], he is freed from all bondage. This is the gradual liberation presented in the texts of all Vedic branches, and one which is quite reasonable.[16]
Thus, attaining brahma-loka became a large gray area in 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 system, representing simultaneously the top attainment of the abhyudaya course and liberation, albeit gradual, getting one鈥檚 feet wet in 苍颈岣ヅ况别测补蝉补. We will address the question of brahma-loka as being simultaneously abhyudaya and 苍颈岣ヅ况别测补蝉补 once again at the end of the chapter, relative to the different types of meditation.
We should, finally, also note that the statement 鈥渓iberation is attained solely through knowledge鈥� should be taken with a grain of salt, for some of the 办腻尘测补 things were irredeemable鈥攖hose explicitly tied to specific objects of desire鈥攚hereas other were dependent on the agent and, although constituting a form of action and not knowledge, played a crucial soteriological role as well. The wedge, thus, was not a line of demarcation, but an intersection. The crucial text here was one already known to us, 叠峁沨补诲-膧谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 4.4.22.
This will occupy us in the next chapter, but here is a foretaste:
At this point it should be explained here how the whole Veda can be employed to the subject of the Self 鈥� By repeating what has been said in this chapter, along with the result, it is attempted to show that the whole of the Veda, sine the corpus dealing with optional rituals (办腻尘测补) is to be employed just for this purpose. Thus, a repetition is made starting with the words 鈥淭hat very.鈥� 鈥� The whole of the ritual portion of the Veda, with the sole exception of the parts dealing with optional rituals (办腻尘测补), is employed through absorption in this knowledge of Brahman laid down in the present chapter starting with 鈥淲hat light鈥� and having the delineated results.[17]
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[2]:
[3]:
See, for instance, 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 1.11.4, where 耻辫腻蝉补苍补 is not meditation proper, but reflection.
[4]:
The first two pairs are omnipresent in his works. On the last, see 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 3.2.21.
[5]:
艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 Introduction.
[6]:
gati-艣谤耻迟别谤 腻辫测补 iti cet鈥�蝉奴谤测补-诲惫腻谤别峁嘺, tayordhvam 腻测补苍 ity evam-膩di-gati-艣rutibhya岣� pr膩pyo 尘辞办峁 iti cet; na; sarva-gatatv膩t gant峁沚hya艣 c膩nanyatv膩t. 膩k膩艣膩di-k膩ra峁嘺tv膩t 蝉补谤惫补-驳补迟补峁� brahma, brahm膩vyatirikt膩艣 ca sarve vij帽膩n腻迟尘腻na岣�; ato n膩pyo 尘辞办峁岣�. gantur anyad vibhinna-诲别艣补峁� ca bhavati gantavyam. na hi, yenaiv膩vyatirikta峁� yat, tat tenaiva gamyate. 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 1.11.4, VI.48-9. Also, the Introduction to the eighth 辫谤补辫腻峁环补办补 of the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补.
[7]:
艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 罢补颈迟迟颈谤墨测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 1.11.4 on both. On the second, 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 3.2.14-5 is a good delineation of the principle.
[8]:
See 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠峁沨补诲-膧谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 1.4.17.
[9]:
[10]:
apar膩su 惫颈诲测腻su phala-辫谤腻辫迟补测别 诲别惫补-测腻苍补峁� panth膩nam avat膩rayi峁an... 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 4.2.1, III.699.
[11]:
[12]:
See 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 on 3.3.39, III.681, where 叠腻诲补谤腻测补峁嘺 affirms the unity of the 鈥渕editations on the heart鈥� in the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 and 叠峁沨补诲-膧谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲, and in effect makes the 叠峁沨补诲-膧谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 conform the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲: 鈥淏ut, there is this difference between the two: in the 颁丑腻苍诲辞驳测补 account, the meditation on Brahman is of the qualified kind, because it is said that desires are to be known just as the Self is: 鈥楾hose who depart from here without discovering the Self and these true desires.鈥� In the 痴腻箩补蝉补苍别测补办补, however, we see just that Brahman without qualities being taught.鈥� 补测补峁� tu atra vidyate 惫颈艣别峁岣�鈥攕agu峁嚹� hi 产谤补丑尘补-惫颈诲测腻 ch膩ndogye upadi艣yate鈥�atha ya ih腻迟尘腻nam anuvidya vrajanty et膩峁兣� ca saty膩n k膩m膩n ity 腻迟尘补-惫补迟 k膩m膩n膩m api vedyatva-艣rava峁嚹乼, v膩jasaneyake tu 苍颈谤驳耻峁嘺m eva brahma upadi艣yam膩na峁� d峁浥泍ate.
[13]:
j帽膩n膩ntare峁 ca ai艣vary膩di-phale峁 膩sakt膩岣� syur mahar峁ya岣�. te pa艣c膩d 补颈艣惫补谤测补-办峁测补-诲补谤艣补苍别苍补 苍颈谤惫颈峁囜箛腻岣� 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补-j帽膩ne parini峁ａ弓h膩ya 办补颈惫补濒测补峁� pr膩pur ity upapadyate. 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 3.3.32, III.671.
[14]:
办腻谤测补-brahma-loka-pralaya-辫谤补迟测耻辫补蝉迟丑腻苍别 sati tatraiva utpanna-samyag-诲补谤艣补苍腻岣� 蝉补苍迟补岣�, tad-adhyak峁峁嘺 hira峁噛agarbhe峁嘺 saha, ata岣� 辫补谤补峁� pari艣uddha峁� vi峁ａ箛o岣� 辫补谤补尘补峁� 辫补诲补峁� 辫谤补迟颈辫补诲测补苍迟别鈥攊迟墨迟迟丑补峁� 办谤补尘补-尘耻办迟颈岣� an膩v峁泃ty-膩di-艣ruty-abhidh膩nebhyo鈥� bhyupagantavy膩. 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠谤补丑尘补-厂奴迟谤补 4.3.10, III.831.
[15]:
tasm膩d asm膩t kalp膩d 奴rdhvam 膩v峁泃tir gamyate. 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠峁沨补诲-膧谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 6.2.15, X.780.
[16]:
yadi v膩 samuccaya-惫补艣腻迟 辫耻谤耻峁岣� 办补尘补濒腻蝉补苍补峁� vrajati 办腻尘耻办补-dh墨岣� |
punar eva m膩navam ima峁� tu vin膩 parivartam 膩vrajati m奴岣峢a-mati岣� ||
athav膩 sa tatra 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补-mati岣� parimucyate sakala-bandhanata岣� |
krama-yoga-muktir udit膩 艣ruti峁 prati艣膩kham evam upapannatar膩 ||鈥�厂补谤惫补箩帽腻迟尘补苍鈥檚 厂补峁卥峁辫补-艢腻谤墨谤补办补 3.50-51.
[17]:
etasminn 腻迟尘补-vi峁ye sarvo vedo yathopayukto bhavati tat tath膩 vaktavyam. 鈥� tac ca yath膩 asmin prap膩峁環ake 补产丑颈丑颈迟补峁� saprayojanam an奴dya atraivopayoga岣� k峁泃snasya vedasya 办腻尘测补-谤腻艣颈-varjitasya鈥搃ty evam-补谤迟丑补峁� 耻办迟腻谤迟丑腻苍耻惫腻诲补岣� sa v膩 e峁 ity-膩di岣� 鈥� 办颈峁� jyotir iya峁� 辫耻谤耻峁岣� ity evam-膩di-峁峁ａ弓丑补-辫谤补辫腻峁环补办补-vihit膩y膩m etasy膩峁� 产谤补丑尘补-惫颈诲测腻y膩m eva峁僷hal膩y膩峁� 办腻尘测补ika-诲别艣补-惫补谤箩颈迟补峁� 办峁泃蝉苍补峁� 办补谤尘补-办腻峁囜笉补峁� t膩darthyena viniyujyate. 艢补峁卥补谤补鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 on the 叠峁沨补诲-膧谤补峁噛补办补 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 4.4.22, IX.641-4.