Human experience unfolds within an ordered system of cause and effect. Every event appears to arise from previous conditions. Actions have consequences, effort produces results, and seeds give rise to trees. Existential reflection therefore assumes that identifiable causes result in significant transformations. In the Indic intellectual tradition, this logic of cause and effect appears to extend to spiritual life as well. Naturally, mokṣa, the highest objective of human existence, might be understood as a result of the cessation of bondage. This has been articulated in different ways in later Vedāntic literature. For instance, the Vedāntasāra expresses this laconically in मोक्षो नाम बन्धनिवृत्तिः — that liberation is the termination of bondage (Sadānanda Yogīndra, 15th century). Such explanations highlight the phenomenological attribute of mokṣa as the freedom from human conditions of bondage, or saṃsāra.
The Problem of Bondage
However, if mokṣa can be attained through freedom from bondage, then a cave-dwelling ascetic, away from the world, must be nearly liberated. Yet this conclusion proves untenable. This raises a deeper philosophical inquiry: why does withdrawal from the world not produce liberation? The answer lies in the fact that bondage does not originate from external circumstances, but in the way the circumstances are perceived by the mind. These perceptions are internalised as impressions in the mind, and they continue to shape one’s experiences well beyond the circumstances. This is the reason that termination of worldly limitations may initially result in freedom, but experience suggests otherwise. Even when one withdraws from particular circumstances, one is not completely free of the situation itself, because the impressions still persist in the mind. But persistence is not permanence. These impressions are nevertheless fleeting, and subject to constant change and dissolution. Mokṣa cannot be something that is reversible, contingent upon changing conditions and experiences. It cannot be grounded in such transience. It must instead be related to something that is unchanging and enduring, and is the solace that is ever present. Therefore, the question of mokṣa cannot be addressed without examining that one principle which is eternal and ageless. It is only by examining this principle that the nature of mokṣa can be coherently understood.
Advaita Vedānta, in this context, opens up this inquiry to critical scrutiny. The Upaniṣads characterise the Self as being that which is complete, eternal, untouched, and beyond ignorance and knowledge — यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहुर्मनो मतम् (Kena Upaniṣad, 1.4–5) — and as immutable:
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचित्
नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः ।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो
न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे ॥
…Kaṭha Upaniṣad, 2.18
Further, the Self is unattached — असङ्गो ह्ययं पुरुषः (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 4.3.15).
The Self is that principle, which is eternal and ageless. It is not an object among other objects, not a fleeting psychological or emotional state, and not identical with the body or the mind. It is that witness that is constant across all states of the mind and all experiences, illumining the changing conditions of waking (jāgrat), dream (svapna) and deep sleep (suṣupti). However, this account of the Self raises a more fundamental inquiry: if the Self is unchanging, eternal and beyond all experience, how is one to account for the lived experience of bondage, agency and limitation?
The Self and the Jīva
At this juncture, it becomes important to differentiate between the Self and the body-mind-intellect complex. The body (śarīra) works as an instrument of perception, action and experience — शरीरं रथमेव तु (Kaṭha Upaniṣad, 1.3.3–4); the mind and intellect are the centres for thoughts, cognition, feelings and emotions. Jīva is the apparent experiencer and knower that functions through the body, mind and intellect. It is the empirical individual who is aware of and engaged with the world. Further, the Upaniṣads advance ontological claims about the jīva’s nature. The distinction between the Self and jīva does not endure, repeatedly affirming that the jīva is ultimately not different from the Self — तत्त्वमसि (Chāndogya Upaniṣad, 6.8.7). The jīva is the Self appearing as limited, because it is misidentified as the body, mind, intellect and their experiences.
In Advaita Vedānta, this misattribution is often called avidyā — ignorance of one’s own true nature. Avidyā gives rise to the experiences of sorrow, happiness, ego, bondage, and the consequent psychological and emotional states. Upon closer introspection, this framework of the Self being free, but the jīva being bound, poses a remarkable challenge. If bondage is a product of ignorance, then it is necessary to remove ignorance, but not bondage, to understand mokṣa. If one is none other than the Self, then why be born, why experience and why — only if capable — realise?
Avidyā, Appearance and the Status of Bondage
Advaita Vedānta addresses this contradiction through the important distinction between reality and appearance. Since the jīva is the misidentified Self, the bondage that the jīva experiences is not an intrinsic condition. The non-Self is misattributed as the Self, and the limitations of the jīva are construed as reality. The process is often described as adhyāsa, or superimposition. Adhyāsa is the superimposition through which one misidentifies one object as another (Śaṅkara’s Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya). This is the foundational error that gives rise to all bondage.
Now the question arises as to where avidyā resides. If the Self is eternal and beyond knowledge and ignorance, then avidyā cannot be its attribute. The śarīra, which is a combination of inert objects, cannot be the centre of avidyā, because it lacks awareness. Advaita explains that ignorance lies within the domain of the mind — a broadly accepted position within the school. The mind is the locus of experiences, reactions, and cognition. The misidentification of the non-Self as the Self also takes place in the mind. Therefore, the mind is responsible for reflecting the Self as an empirical individual, the jīva.
However, avidyā does not help in either the recognition of the eternal Self or the progress in the path of finding that endless joy. It only produces something that forms an obstruction in recognising the Self. Along with misidentifying the Self with the body-mind-intellect complex, it gives rise to attributes like agency and ego. The jīva is then nothing but an apparent manifestation arising from the superimposition of the Self with experiences.
There is a subtle but important discrimination that follows from this. The misidentification which is at the root of bondage is the experience, but not the experiencer. In other words, if one is able to observe an emotion like sorrow or joy, then the emotion is an object, because it is observable. What is observable is observed by the experiencer, and is not the experiencer. Whatever can be observed and known cannot be the knower and the observer. Advaita names this dṛg-dṛśya viveka — the discrimination between the seer and the seen. While the mind with all its contents and experiences is ‘seen’, the Self with whose light all this is ‘seen’ is the ‘seer’. This is how the Upaniṣads articulate this Self, as the eternal seer — श्रोत्रस्य श्रोत्रं मनसो मनो यद् वाचो ह वाचं स उ प्राणस्य प्राणः — the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech and the breath of the breath (Kena Upaniṣad, 1.2). To return to the larger argument: the jīva is the experiencer, and not the experience. This is the error that avidyā names as misidentification — to identify the witness as the witnessed — and this is precisely where bondage takes form.
Karma, Effort, and the Limits of Causality
Before considering how this error is corrected, it is important to examine the error’s embodiment in karma. When the body-mind-intellect complex is taken to be the doer and experiencer, karma is performed with a sense of agency, often with an expectation that the results can be shaped according to one’s desire. Yet experience reveals a more complex framework of reality. One can execute the effort that one is best capable of, but neither the results nor the outcomes can be directed by either the individual or anyone else. The results and outcomes are contingent on several known and unknown variables, limitations and tendencies. While one understands that the sense of control is thus only partial and in fact illusory, it also becomes evident that all karma is rooted in ignorance. However, within the empirical framework, karma that is attached to one’s duty is inevitable, and plays an important role in shaping and purifying one’s mind and disciplining one’s body. As the Bhagavad Gītā puts it — न हि कश्चित्क्षणमपि जातु तिष्ठत्यकर्मकृत् (BG 3.5) — nobody can remain without performing one’s karma, even for a moment.
कायेन मनसा बुद्ध्या केवलैरिन्द्रियैरपि ।
योगिनः कर्म कुर्वन्ति सङ्गं त्यक्त्वाऽऽत्मशुद्धये ॥
…Bhagavad Gītā, 5.11
The wise perform their karmas, without desiring results, for the purification of the mind. At the same time, the mind is the closest friend as well as the worst enemy — उद्धरेदात्मनाऽत्मानं… आत्मैव ह्यात्मनो बन्धुः आत्मैव रिपुरात्मनः (Bhagavad Gītā, 6.5). This is because the mind is the locus of misidentification as well as the instrument of viveka that one uses to overcome misidentification. It is both the problem and the tool.
The removal of bondage, therefore, is not intrinsic, but arises from misidentification. The removal of bondage — or rather of ignorance — does not function as a tangible entity that can be progressively reduced or eliminated. It is an error that is first refined through karma — the discipline that purifies the mind — and then dissolved by recognition.
This is a subtle shift from how karma has been understood. In ordinary experience, change is causal; a process unfolds over time to give the desired outcome. However, the correction of an error does not follow this structure. For an error to gradually diminish and collapse, what appears real must lose its validity because it has been misinterpreted. In this case, ignorance is the error. Instead of consisting in the production of a new state, it is the process of gradually diminishing the ignorance and seeing through the misapprehension. The Self is changeless, unmodified, something that is ever present and eternal. What shifts is the standpoint from which the Self is understood. This shift is cognitive rather than ontological.
Mokṣa as Recognition
Therefore, mokṣa is the recognition of what is already the case, rather than the outcome of a cause. It is also understood that the structure of causality is valid in the empirical domain but is evidently inadequate in the domain of mokṣa. The intentional paradox here is that, although liberation is not something that is a causal outcome, it is yet recognised as a part of the empirical framework that is life, because this is where inquiry reveals itself gradually. The path towards this recognition therefore unfolds through the domain of experience, and not outside it. Advaita clarifies this through the analogy of dreaming and waking. While dreaming, one experiences sorrow, joy, fear and several emotions, and is bound. The bondage is entirely real to the dreamer in the moment of dreaming; and yet, when he awakes, it all appears unreal. In the waking state, the dream-self is not liberated, because it was never a real Self to begin with. What ends is the appearance of the ‘apparent’ bondage. Mokṣa works similarly. What dissolves is the misidentification and the appearance of bondage, and with it the lifting of the veil of avidyā. What follows is the recognition that neither bondage nor emotions are intrinsic conditions.
Advaita, instead of rejecting the appearance altogether, engages with it in such a way that it shows the path towards dissolving the misidentification. The Upaniṣads prescribe a three-fold practice to this path — आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः — the Self is to be seen, heard of, reflected upon, and meditated upon (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, 2.4.5). Śravaṇa is the hearing of the teaching from the guru, manana is the student’s reflection upon the teaching, and nididhyāsana is sustained contemplative meditation upon the teachings. The guru uses both aparā vidyā — texts, scriptures, analytical reasoning, and hymns — as well as paths to parā vidyā, the direct, non-discursive recognition of that Self. Aparā vidyā leads to parā vidyā, and that culminates the journey to mokṣa. The means is aparā vidyā; the recognition is parā vidyā. Karma yoga and bhakti yoga are two such practices within this architecture of aparā vidyā. They are modes of orienting and disciplining the mind towards the recognition of the Self.
The question which now remains is not how mokṣa is produced, but how a re-evaluation of one’s available tools reveals the path to the realisation of mokṣa. It is not the effect of any cause but the dissolution of an error — the lifting of the veil of adhyāsa, and the realising that one already is the Self, forever liberated. This also explains why practices like karma yoga or bhakti do not produce mokṣa. They help clear the path and remove the obstructions that prevent recognition.
Mokṣa means freedom — release. But it is not a state acquired; it is a recognition. It cannot be produced; it is the falling away of the misidentification through which bondage appeared real.
Feature Image Credit: IStock
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
