Who is the jīvanmukta
And who is the one freed while living? As a person holds firmly 'I am the body, I am a man, I am a brahmin, I am a śūdra,' so the one who holds just as firmly, 'I am not a brahmin, not a śūdra, not a man, but the unattached, whose nature is being, consciousness, and bliss; whose nature is light; the indweller of all; whose nature is the space of consciousness,' that one, holding this with direct knowledge, is freed while living.
Who, then, is liberated while living (jīvanmukta)? Just as an ordinary person is firmly convinced, 'I am the body, I am a man, I am a brahmin, I am a śūdra,' the jīvanmukta is just as firmly convinced, 'I am not a brahmin, not a śūdra, not a man, but the unattached one, whose nature is being-consciousness-bliss, whose nature is light, the inner Self of all, the very space of consciousness.' The one with this firm, direct knowledge is liberated while living.
- jīvanmukta
Where the schools meet, and where they part
Liberation is the aim, and firm, settled knowledge of the Self, not mere belief or learning, is essential to it; a wavering or merely notional conviction does not free.
The freed one no longer takes himself to be the body, the caste, or the social station; what he truly is exceeds all of these.
The Self in its truth is unattached, conscious, and seated within as the indweller; its real nature is never touched by the body's condition.
Liberation is the present standing of the knower; it is not waited for. Bondage was only a false certainty about what one is, never a real fetter on the Self, so when immediate knowledge replaces that certainty at its root, freedom is already accomplished here, in the body. The knower holds with full conviction, I am not the body but the unattached being-consciousness-bliss, the indweller of all, and that conviction is aparoksa, the Self known as oneself rather than thought about. The body simply runs out the momentum, prarabdha, that already set it going; he abides as the free Self while it lasts and is not bound by its continuing.
Brahman is the supreme Self, the inner controller seated within all, and the individual soul is real and eternal, held inseparably as His body and mode. Firm knowledge and unbroken devotion are indeed the soul's release in the making, and the soul rightly knows itself as not the body but as belonging wholly to the Lord who indwells it. Yet full release is not the embodied state; it is reached when the body falls and the soul attains the Lord's presence in His abode, prarabdha then spent and no return to birth. So the devotee of settled knowledge stands on the threshold, free in knowing and in love, but the consummation of liberation is at the body's fall, not within it.
The soul and the Lord are eternally distinct, and that fivefold difference never dissolves, in bondage or in release; the soul is forever dependent and never the Lord's equal. Knowledge and devotion ripen the soul and make it fit, but release is not something the soul accomplishes for itself while it lives. It comes only after the body falls, and only by the Lord's grace, when He frees the deserving soul to abide in His presence as itself. So freedom in the embodied state is not granted: the living devotee may know the Lord as his inmost ground and depend on Him utterly, yet liberation proper is given at death and by grace, not held now.
When the knower is firmly convinced, I am not the body but the unattached Self, is liberation already accomplished in this very body, with only its momentum left to run, or is this firm knowing the threshold of a release that is consummated only when the body falls, and for Madhva only then by the Lord's grace? The passage teaches freedom while living; the other schools place the fullness of it at death, and the difference is kept open.
What makes the difference between the ordinary person and the one freed while living?
- The freed one has left the body and its station behind by withdrawing from the world
- The freed one's conviction about what he is has been replaced at its root, held now as immediate knowledge rather than belief
- The freed one has acquired powers the ordinary person lacks
- The freed one no longer has a body sustained by prarabdha
Show the answer
The schools agree that firm knowledge of the Self frees, yet they divide. Where does the division actually fall?
- On whether liberation is already present in the embodied knower, or whole only when the body falls
- On whether the Self is conscious or inert
- On whether firm knowledge is needed at all, or only ritual action
- On whether the body of the knower is sustained by anything once knowledge dawns
Show the answer
Freed while the body lasts
Who, then, is freed while still alive? The answer does not point to a feat or a withdrawal, but to a certainty. An ordinary person is sure, without ever stopping to question it, I am the body, I am a man, I am of this caste. That sureness is not a thought he entertains; it is the ground he stands on, running underneath everything he does. The one freed while living has a sureness held just as deeply, but its content is turned around: I am not the body, not its station, but the unattached, whose nature is being and consciousness and bliss, the Self seated within all, the very space in which any knowing happens.
On the path this passage belongs to, that turned-around certainty is the whole of it. Bondage was never a chain laid on the Self; it was only a false certainty about what one is. So freedom is not something added or arrived at from far off. It is what stands once the false certainty has been replaced at its root by the true one, and replaced not as a belief one could argue but as immediate knowing, the Self known as oneself. The Advaita teachers add what the next passage will spell out: the body of such a knower goes on for a while, carried by the momentum that already set it in motion, and he watches that momentum spend itself without taking himself to be it. Liberation, on this reading, is not kept for death. It is the standing of one who, while the body lasts, no longer mistakes himself for it.
The other schools meet the same words and place the fullness of release elsewhere. For Ramanuja's school the Self is the inner controller seated within, and the soul is real and held inseparably as His own; firm knowledge and steady devotion are release in the making, and the soul rightly knows it is not the body but belongs wholly to the Lord. Yet the consummation is not the embodied state. It comes when the body falls and the soul attains His presence, with nothing left to draw it back to birth. The devotee of settled knowledge stands on the threshold, free in knowing and in love, but the completion waits for the body's fall. For Madhva the soul and the Lord are forever distinct, and that difference never dissolves; knowledge and devotion make the soul fit, but release is given, not seized, only after death and only by the Lord's grace, the soul abiding as itself in His presence.
So the question that stays open is one of when, and of by whose doing. Is liberation already accomplished here, in this very body, with only its momentum left to run out? Or is this firm knowing the threshold of a release that is whole only when the body drops, and for Madhva only then, and only by grace? The passage teaches freedom while living, and means it. The other readings keep its fullness for the fall of the body. We set them side by side and do not close the distance for you.
Whether settled knowledge is liberation already present in the body, with only the body's started momentum, what the next passages call prarabdha, left to run, or the threshold of a release consummated only when the body falls, and for Madhva only then by the Lord's grace, the schools divide and we keep it open.
If you held, as firmly as you now hold that you are the body, that you are the unattached Self, would anything still be left to wait for?
In the commentaries
The question is asked plainly: who is the one freed while still alive? The answer turns on a single word, dridhaniscaya, settled conviction. An ordinary person is convinced without a moment's doubt, I am the body, I am a man, I am of this caste; that conviction is not reasoned, it simply runs underneath every act. The freed one has a conviction held just as firmly, but with the opposite content: I am not the body, not its station, but the unattached, whose nature is being, consciousness, and bliss, the inner Self seated in all, the very space in which knowing happens. What makes him free is not that he has heard this or can argue it, but that it has become aparoksa, immediate, no longer an idea about the Self but the Self known as oneself. On Sankara's path this is the whole fruit of inquiry: bondage was never a chain on the Self, only a false certainty about what one is, and when that certainty is replaced at the root by the true one, freedom is already here. The body continues only because the momentum that began it, prarabdha, has not yet spent itself; the knower watches it run out without taking himself to be it. So liberation is not postponed to death. It is the standing of one who, while the body lasts, no longer mistakes himself for it.