जगतगुरु श्री आदिशंकराचार्य भगवद्पादानुसारं किं व्यावहारिक जगत् केवलं अज्ञानिनां कृते एव दृश्यते (jagataguru śrī ādiśaṁkarācārya bhagavadpādānusāraṁ kiṁ vyāvahārika jagat kēvalaṁ ajñānināṁ kr̥tē ēva dr̥śyatē - According to Jagatguru Sri Adi Shankaracharya Bhagavad-pada, is the practical world seen only by the ignorant)? ?

श्री गरुु भ्यो नमः (śrī gurubhyo namaḥ - salutations to holy gurus)॥

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सदाशिव समारंभाम् शंकराचार्य मध्यमाम्। अस्मद् आचार्य पर्यन्तां वन्दे गुरुपरंपराम्॥	sadāśiva samāraṃbhām śaṃkarācārya madhyamām। asmad ācārya paryantāṃ vande guruparaṃparām॥	Beginning with Sadashiva, through Adi Shankaracharya in between and upto my own preceptor, I bow with reverence to the entire tradition of preceptors
Sanskrit Reference: गुरुवंदना (guruvaṃdanā preceptor salutation)

1. किं जगत् अज्ञानाम् एव भासते (kiṁ jagat ajñānām ēva bhāsatē - does the world appear only to the ignorant)?

    In one of the Facebook groups, there was an interesting discussion thread claiming that “ The world appears to the ignorant only ” according to जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) who is one of the founding fathers of the केवलाद्वैत वेदान्त उत्तरमीमांस दर्शन (kevalādvaita vedānta uttaramīmāṃsa darśana – absolute nondualistic final-wisdom posterior-inquiry philosophy).   The original post is shared below: 

Original post by Ramesam Vemuri

World appears to the ignorant only: Michael Chandra Cohen  Ji tirelessly keeps on reminding us about the unreality of the apparently perceived world with long lists of shruti and Shankara bhagavat pAda's bhAhya citations. However, we also find in these columns several posters taking the position that a "Knower," even after the realization of the Self, continues to perceive a world differentiated into multiple objects, but considers all the percepts as Self. Such a stand ignores the fact that it is impossible for finite objects to be present along with the Infinite impartite, homogeneous Oneness without a second (thing). Further, it goes against what Sage Yajnavalkya teaches at 2.4.14 and 4.5.15, BU. Then, who is it that sees the variegated multiplicity called world? Shankara answers that question unambiguously without mincing any words and with absolute clarity. For example: 1. At 13.2, BGB:  अविद्यामात्रं संसारः यथादृष्टविषयः एव । न क्षेत्रज्ञस्य केवलस्य अविद्या तत्कार्यं च ।   न   च मिथ्याज्ञानं परमार्थवस्तु दूषयितुं समर्थम् । 'samsAra' is only based on avidyA and exists only for the ignorant man who sees the world as it appears to him. Neither avidyA nor its effect pertains to Kshetrajna pure and simple. Nor is illusory knowledge able to affect the Real Thing. (Trans: A.M. Sastri). 2. At 1.2.12, BSB:   परमार्थतस्तु नान्यतरस्यापि सम्भवति , अचेतनत्वात्सत्त्वस्य, अविक्रियत्वाच्च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य । अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितस्वभावत्वाच्च सत्त्वस्य सुतरां न सम्भवति । तथा च श्रुतिः — 'यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना स्वप्नदृष्टहस्त्यादिव्यवहारवदविद्याविषय एव कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं दर्शयति । 'यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना च विवेकिनः कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं निवारयति ॥ For these states of being an agent and experiencer are fancied on the soul (separate self) and the mind, owing to a non-discrimination between their natures. In reality these are possible in neither of them; for the mind is insentient and the soul is changeless. This is all the more impossible in the mind, it being the creation of ignorance. In support of this here is a Vedic text: “Because when there is difference, as it were, then one sees another” (4.5.15, brihat), where it is shown that dealings based on agentship etc. can be possible only within the range of ignorance in the same sense as it is possible to deal with elephants etc. present in a dream. And by the text, “But when to the Knower of brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? (4.5.15, BU)” are denied for the discriminating man such dealings based on agentship etc. (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda). 3. At 1.2.20,BSB: 2.4.14, BU   विद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं वारयति ॥ 2.4.14, BU precludes all dealings within the sphere of illumination. (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda). 4. At 4.1.3, BSB :   प्राक्प्रबोधात् संसारित्वाभ्युपगमात् , तद्विषयत्वाच्च प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहारस्य । For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception are confined within that state only. (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda).

    As shown above, the author of the original post, has quoted some interesting scriptural references from original शङ्कर भाष्याणि (śaṅkara bhāṣyāṇi – shankara’s commentaries) in defence of his understanding that according to जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda), the world appears only to the अज्ञानिन् बद्धात्मनाः (ajñānin baddhātmanāḥ - ignorant bound souls) and not to the ब्रह्मज्ञानिन् मुक्तात्मनाः (brahmajñānin muktātmanāḥ - spiritually enlightened liberated souls) .   With all due respects to the original author, I beg to slightly differ with him on this view.  I would like to share my 2 cents of critical comments on the same.

    To this end, I would like to deep dive a little more into each of the scriptural citations provided in defense of the claim and critically review it. But even before getting there, I would like to highlight that this claim that the व्य्वावहारिक जगत् (vyvāvahārika jagat – phenomenal world) appears only to the अज्ञानिन् बद्ध जीवात्मन् (ajñānin baddha jīvātman – ignorant bound corporeal soul) and not to a जीवन्मुक्तब्रह्मज्ञानिन् (jīvanmuktabrahmajñānin – spiritually enlightened living liberate) would be falsified by the innumerable case-studies in the history of mankind testifying various ब्रह्मज्ञानिन् मुन्यः (brahmajñānin munyaḥ - spiritually enlightened sages) who walked on Earth as जीवन्मुक्ताः (jīvanmuktāḥ - living liberates) including वेदऋषिमुन्यः (vedaṛṣimunyaḥ - vedic seer-sages), परमाचार्याः षड्दर्शननाम् (paramācāryāḥ ṣaḍdarśananām – chief preceptors of six-fold philosophies), etc. 

    This being the case, how can some third person just like that deny such a fact? How can one pass such pre-conceived judgmental sweeping generalizations on the enlightenment status of ब्रह्मज्ञानिन् मुन्यः (brahmajñānin munyaḥ - spiritually enlightened sages)? In fact, जगत्गुरु (jagatguru – world preceptor) himself very categorically states thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् ब्रह्मविदा कंचित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति। कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत।	api ca naivātra vivaditavyam brahmavidā kaṁcitkālaṁ śarīraṁ dhriyatē na vā dhriyata iti। kathaṁ hi ēkasya svahr̥dayapratyayaṁ brahmavēdanaṁ dēhadhāraṇaṁ ca aparēṇa pratikṣēptuṁ śakyēta।	Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to whether the body is retained (after knowledge) for some time or not by the knowers of Brahman. For when somebody feels in his heart that he has realized Brahman and yet holds the body, how can this be denied by somebody else? -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.1.15)

             For example, according to this post the व्य्वावहारिक जगत् (vyvāvahārika jagat – phenomenal world) would appear only to the eyes of अज्ञानिन् बद्ध जीवात्मन् (ajñānin baddha jīvātman – ignorant bound corporeal soul), then it would imply that जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) was also अज्ञानिन् (ajñānin – ignorant) since the व्य्वावहारिक जगत् (vyvāvahārika jagat – phenomenal world) not only appeared to him but it is also an undisputable historic fact that He lived in this world, established the केवलाद्वैत वेदान्त उत्तरमीमांस दर्शन (kevalādvaita vedānta uttaramīmāṃsa darśana – absolute nondualistic final-wisdom posterior-inquiry philosophy) and even actively preached the same and interacted with his disciples, wrote various भाष्याः (bhāṣyāḥ - commentaries) and प्रकरण ग्रन्थाः (prakaraṇa granthāḥ - monographic treatises) , etc. In fact, the very citations from his भाष्याः (bhāṣyāḥ - commentaries) referred to in the original post, could not have been possible, if the व्य्वावहारिक जगत् (vyvāvahārika jagat – phenomenal world) would have प्रनष्ट (pranaṣṭa - vanished) from the eyes of the revered भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) on his attaining सम्यक्सम्बोध (samyaksambōdha – perfect enlightenment). Afterall, we all very well know that he wrote these भाष्याः (bhāṣyāḥ - commentaries) in the capacity of a जीवन्मुक्तब्रह्मज्ञानिन् (jīvanmuktabrahmajñānin – spiritually enlightened living liberate) and not as a अज्ञानिन् बद्ध जीवात्मन् (ajñānin baddha jīvātman – ignorant bound corporeal soul).

    Or does the author of the original post claim otherwise, i.e., the जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) lived, saw, preached, debated and wrote in the capacity of a अज्ञानिन् (ajñānin - ignorant)? If it be so, then IMHO, it would amount to निन्दा (nindā - blasphemy) against the जगत्गुरु (jagatguru - world leader)  and moreover it be meaningless to cite his भाष्याः (bhāṣyāḥ - commentaries) as आप्त वाक्य / शब्द प्रमाण (āpta vākya / śabda pramāṇa – expert declaration / scriptural testimony), in defense of the post.

However, it is an undisputed fact (and am sure the author of the original post would not deny) that जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) was definitely one of the greatest जीवन्मुक्तब्रह्मज्ञानिन् (jīvanmuktabrahmajñānin – spiritually enlightened living liberate) in human history.

 

Reference

https://whatisgod-religiousfestivals.blogspot.com/p/sri-adi-samkaracarya-jayanti.html

1.1 Critical assessment of the scriptural testimonies provided in the original post of   Ramesam Vemuri

     With the above points, I would next like to deep dive a little more into the  शब्दप्रमाण  (śabdapramāṇa – scriptural reference)  provided as testimonies in the original post, which includes the following citations predominantly from  शङ्कर भाष्याणि  (śaṅkara bhāṣyāṇi – shankara’s commentaries )

#	Primary Reference Text	Referenced verse index	Cross Reference Text	Cross Reference verse Index
1.1.1	श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya)	13.2
1.1.2	शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīraka brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)	1.2.12	बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्  (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)	4.5.15
1.1.3	शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīraka brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)	1.2.20	बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्  (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)	2.4.14
1.1.4	शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīraka brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)	4.1.3

We shall now take a deeper look into each of these references and objectively analyse whether the  revered  भाष्यकार  (bhāṣyakāra - commentator)  actually intends to convey the same meaning as interpreted in the original post. In other words, let us critically evaluate if these scriptures endorse that “ the world appears only for the ignorant”  or not. 

Citation 1.1.1: From श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (# 13.2)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) viz. 2^nd verse of 13^th chapter as denoted below:

Citation 1  in the original post of Ramesam Vemuri

अविद्यामात्रं संसारः यथादृष्टविषयः एव । न क्षेत्रज्ञस्य केवलस्य अविद्या तत्कार्यं च ।   न   च मिथ्याज्ञानं परमार्थवस्तु दूषयितुं समर्थम् ।  “'samsAra' is only based on avidyA and exists only for the ignorant man who sees the world as it appears to him. Neither avidyA nor its effect pertains to Kshetrajna pure and simple. Nor is illusory knowledge able to affect the Real Thing. (Trans: A.M. Sastri)”.

If you notice carefully in the above reference, परमाचार्य (paramācārya – chief preceptor), here in the role of भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) clearly explains that “ अविद्यामात्रं संसारः यथादृष्टविषयः एव (avidyāmātraṁ saṁsāraḥ yathādr ̥ ṣṭaviṣayaḥ ēva – metempsychosis is only based on ignorance and appears only to the ignorant) ”

The important point to be noted here, is that the भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) consciously refers to “ संसार (saṃsāra - metempsychosis)” which corresponds to स्निग्ध संसारिन्चक्र (snigdha saṃsārincakra – viscous transmigratory cycle). Etymologically the Sanskrit term “ संसार (saṃsāra)” is derived from the संसृ (saṃsṛ - to go round / revolve).

     Unfortunately, the author of the original post, dilutes this technical term used by भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) viz. “ संसार (saṃsāra - metempsychosis)” , but instead interprets it in the shallower sense of जगत् / प्रपञ्च / लोक (jagat / prapañca / loka - world) and (IMHO,) wrongly interprets as “केवलं अज्ञानिनः एव जगत् पश्यन्ति  / अज्ञानाभ्य एव जगत् दृश्यते (kēvalaṁ ajñāninaḥ ēva jagat paśyanti / ajñānābhya ēva jagat dr̥śyatē– only the ignorant see the world / the world appears to the ignorant only)”. To the best of my understanding, neither भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) nor the गीताचार्य (gītācārya – preceptor of the song) suggest that,       

In order to validate this, let us first look at the मूलश्लोक (mūlaśloka – original verse) wherein His Holiness भगवान् श्री कृष्णपरमात्मा (bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇaparamātmā) very categorically declares thus:    

Original	Transliteration	Translation
श्री भगवानुवाच इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते। एतद्यो वेत्ति तं प्राहुः क्षेत्रज्ञ इति तद्विदः।। क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत। क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम।।	śrī bhagavānuvāca idaṁ śarīraṁ kauntēya kṣētramityabhidhīyatē। ētadyō vētti taṁ prāhuḥ kṣētrajña iti tadvidaḥ।। kṣētrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi sarvakṣētrēṣu bhārata। kṣētrakṣētrajñayōrjñānaṁ yattajjñānaṁ mataṁ mama।।	The Blessed Lord said: O son of Kunti, this body is referred to as the 'field'. Those who are versed in this call him who is conscious of it as the 'knower of the field'. And, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, under-stand Me to be the 'Knower of the field' in all the fields. In My opinion, that is Knowledge which is the knowledge of the field and the knower of the field. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता (śrīmad bhagavadgītā) (13.2,3)

    Please remember that the above citation forms part of the त्रयोदशाध्याय श्रीमद् भगवद्गीतस्य (trayodaśādhyāya śrīmad bhagavadgītasya – thirteenth chapter of sacred song celestial) which deals with क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोग (kṣetrakṣetrajñayoga – field & field-knower communion) wherein the “ क्षेत्र (kṣetra - field)” corresponds to the व्यावहारिकसत्त्व इदंपदार्थचैतन्यस्य (vyāvahārikasattva idaṃpadārthacaitanyasya – phenomenal world of objective consciousness) and the “ क्षेत्रज्ञ (kṣetrajña – field-knower)” corresponds to its polar principle of व्यावहारिकसत्त्व अहंपदार्थ चैतन्यस्य (vyāvahārikasattva ahaṃpadārtha caitanyasya – phenomenal state of subjective consciousness), while “ योग (yoga – union)” corresponds to the पारमार्थिकसत्त्व केवलाद्वैतब्रह्मचैतन्यस्य (pāramārthikasattva kevalādvaitabrahmacaitanyasya – noumenal realm of absolute non-dualistic consciousness).

     And it is obviously clear that nowhere in the above श्लोक (mūlaśloka – verse), does the गीताचार्य (gītācārya – preceptor of the song) says that the “केवलं अज्ञानिनः एव जगत् पश्यन्ति  / अज्ञानाभ्य एव जगत् दृश्यते (kēvalaṁ ajñāninaḥ ēva jagat paśyanti / ajñānābhya ēva jagat dr̥śyatē– only the ignorant see the world / the world appears to the ignorant only)”,

    Next, let us look at what explanation about the above श्लोक (śloka – verse) is provided by भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator). First, let us look at the specific snapshot portion of the भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) cited in the original post and directly related to the topic of discussion    

 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
विवेकिनाम् अप्रवृत्तिदर्शनात् तदनुगामिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ शास्त्रानर्थक्यम् इति चेत्? न कस्यचिदेव विवेकोपपत्तेः। अनेकेषु हि प्राणिषु कश्चिदेव विवेकी स्यात्? यथेदानीम्। न च विवेकिनम् अनुवर्तन्ते मूढाः? रागादिदोषतन्त्रत्वात् प्रवृत्तेः? अभिचरणादौ च प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात्? स्वाभाव्याच्च प्रवृत्तेः -- स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते (गीता 5।14) इति हि उक्तम्।। तस्मात् अविद्यामात्रं संसारः यथादृष्टविषयः एव। न क्षेत्रज्ञस्य केवलस्य अविद्या तत्कार्यं च। न च मिथ्याज्ञानं परमार्थवस्तु दूषयितुं समर्थम्। न हि ऊषरदेशं स्नेहेन पङ्कीकर्तुं शक्नोति मरीच्युदकम्। तथा अविद्या क्षेत्रज्ञस्य न किञ्चित् कर्तुं शक्नोति। अतश्चेदमुक्तम् -- क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) ? अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानम् (गीता 5।15)	vivēkinām apravr̥ttidarśanāt tadanugāminām apravr̥ttau śāstrānarthakyam iti cēt? na kasyacidēva vivēkōpapattēḥ। anēkēṣu hi prāṇiṣu kaścidēva vivēkī syāt? yathēdānīm। na ca vivēkinam anuvartantē mūḍhāḥ? rāgādidōṣatantratvāt pravr̥ttēḥ? abhicaraṇādau ca pravr̥ttidarśanāt? svābhāvyācca pravr̥ttēḥ -- svabhāvastu pravartatē (gītā 5।14) iti hi uktam।। tasmāt avidyāmātraṁ saṁsāraḥ yathādr̥ṣṭaviṣayaḥ ēva। na kṣētrajñasya kēvalasya avidyā tatkāryaṁ ca। na ca mithyājñānaṁ paramārthavastu dūṣayituṁ samartham। na hi ūṣaradēśaṁ snēhēna paṅkīkartuṁ śaknōti marīcyudakam। tathā avidyā kṣētrajñasya na kiñcit kartuṁ śaknōti। ataścēdamuktam -- kṣētrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi (gītā 13।2) ? ajñānēnāvr̥taṁ jñānam (gītā 5।15)	[Objection:] May it not be that the scriptures will become meaningless when, by noticing abstention from action in the case of men with discrimination, their followers too will abstain? Reply: No, because discrimination arises in some rare person only. For, as at present, some rare one among many people comes to possess discrimination. Besides, fools do not follow one who has discrimination, because (their) engagement in action is impelled by defects such as attachment etc. And they are seen to get engaged in such acts as black magic. Moreover, engagement in action is natural. Verily has it been said (by the Lord), 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Therefore, the mundane state consists of nothing but ignorance, and is an object of perception (to the ignorant man who sees it) just as it appears to him. Ignorance and its effects do not belong to the Knower of the feild, the Absolute. Moreover, false knowledge cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot make a desert muddy with its moisture. Similarly, ignorance cannot act in any way on the Knower of the field. Hence has this been said, 'And understand Me to be knower of the field,' as also, 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance' (5.15). -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (13.2,3)

Here too, it is clear that nowhere in the above commentarial extract, भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) seems to suggest that the “केवलं अज्ञानिनः एव जगत् पश्यन्ति  / अज्ञानाभ्य एव जगत् दृश्यते (kēvalaṁ ajñāninaḥ ēva jagat paśyanti / ajñānābhya ēva jagat dr̥śyatē– only the ignorant see the world / the world appears to the ignorant only)”,  And to avoid any potential ambiguity due to partial citation, I would like to quote here the complete भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above श्लोक (śloka – verse) wherein the revered जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) explains thus (Note: As the commentary is quite long, I have highlighted in bold font the relevant portions, for better reading experience):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
इदम् इति सर्वनाम्ना उक्तं विशिनष्टि शरीरम् इति। हे कौन्तेय? क्षतत्राणात्? क्षयात्? क्षरणात्? क्षेत्रवद्वा अस्मिन् कर्मफलनिष्पत्तेः क्षेत्रम् इति -- इतिशब्दः एवंशब्दपदार्थकः -- क्षेत्रम् इत्येवम् अभिधीयते कथ्यते। एतत् शरीरं क्षेत्रं यः वेत्ति विजानाति? आपादतलमस्तकं ज्ञानेन विषयीकरोति? स्वाभाविकेन औपदेशिकेन वा वेदनेन विषयीकरोति विभागशः? तं वेदितारं प्राहुः कथयन्ति क्षेत्रज्ञः इति -- इतिशब्दः एवंशब्दपदार्थकः एव पूर्ववत् -- क्षेत्रज्ञः इत्येवम् आहुः। के तद्विदः तौ क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञौ ये विदन्ति ते तद्विदः।।एवं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञौ उक्तौ। किम् एतावन्मात्रेण ज्ञानेन ज्ञातव्यौ इति न इति उच्यते -- --,क्षेत्रज्ञं यथोक्तलक्षणं चापि मां परमेश्वरम् असंसारिणं विद्धि जानीहि। सर्वक्षेत्रेषु यः क्षेत्रज्ञः ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तानेकक्षेत्रोपाधिप्रविभक्तः? तं निरस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदं सदसदादिशब्दप्रत्ययागोचरं विद्धि इति अभिप्रायः। हे भारत? यस्मात् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञेश्वरयाथात्म्यव्यतिरेकेण न ज्ञानगोचरम् अन्यत् अवशिष्टम् अस्ति? तस्मात् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः ज्ञेयभूतयोः यत् ज्ञानं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञौ येन ज्ञानेन विषयीक्रियेते? तत् ज्ञानं सम्यग्ज्ञानम् इति मतम् अभिप्रायः मम ईश्वरस्य विष्णोः।।ननु सर्वक्षेत्रेषु एक एव ईश्वरः? न अन्यः तद्व्यतिरिक्तः भोक्ता विद्यते चेत्? ततः ईश्वरस्य संसारित्वं प्राप्तम् ईश्वरव्यतिरेकेण वा संसारिणः अन्यस्य अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गः। तच्च उभयमनिष्टम्? बन्धमोक्षतद्धेतुशास्त्रानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात्? प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविरोधाच्च। प्रत्यक्षेण तावत् सुखदुःखतद्धेतुलक्षणः संसारः उपलभ्यते जगद्वैचित्र्योपलब्धेश्च धर्माधर्मनिमित्तः संसारः अनुमीयते। सर्वमेतत् अनुपपन्नमात्मेश्वरैकत्वे।।न ज्ञानाज्ञानयोः अन्यत्वेनोपपत्तेः -- दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची अविद्या या च विद्येति ज्ञाता (क0 उ0 1।2।4)। तथा च तयोः विद्याविद्याविषययोः फलभेदोऽपि विरुद्धः निर्दिष्टः -- श्रेयश्च प्रेयश्च इति विद्याविषयः श्रेयः? प्रेयस्तु अविद्याकार्यम् इति। तथा च व्यासः -- द्वाविमावथ पन्थानौ (महा0 शान्ति0 241।6) इत्यादि? इमौ द्वावेव पन्थानौ इत्यादि च। इह च द्वे निष्ठे उक्ते। अविद्या च सह कार्येण हातव्या इति श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायेभ्यः अवगम्यते। श्रुतयः तावत् -- इह चेदवेदीदथ सत्यमस्ति न चेदिहावेदीन्महती विनष्टिः (के0 उ0 2।5) तमेवं विद्वानमृत इह भवति (नृ0 पू0 उ0 6)। नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय (श्वे0 उ0 3।8) विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन (तै0 उ0 2।4)। अविदुषस्तु -- अथ तस्य भयं भवति (तै0 उ0 2।7)? अविद्यायामन्तरे वर्तमानाः (क0 उ0 1।2।5) ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति (मु0 उ0 3।2।9) अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् आत्मवित् यः स इदं सर्वं भवति (बृह0 उ0 1।4।10) यदा चर्मवत् (श्वे0 उ0 6।20) इत्याद्याः सहस्रशः। स्मृतयश्च -- अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः (गीता 5।15) इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः (गीता 5।19) समं पश्यन् हि सर्वत्र (गीता 13।28) इत्याद्याः। न्यायतश्च -- सर्पान्कुशाग्राणि तथोदपानं ज्ञात्वा मनुष्याः परिवर्जयन्ति। अज्ञानतस्तत्र पतन्ति केचिज्ज्ञाने फलं पश्य तथाविशिष्टम् (महा0 शा0 201।16)। तथा च -- देहादिषु आत्मबुद्धिः अविद्वान् रागद्वेषादिप्रयुक्तः धर्माधर्मानुष्ठानकृत् जायते म्रियते च इति अवगम्यते देहादिव्यतिरिक्तात्मदर्शिनः रागद्वेषादिप्रहाणापेक्षधर्माधर्मप्रवृत्त्युपशमात् मुच्यन्ते इति न केनचित् प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्यं न्यायतः। तत्र एवं सति? क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्यैव सतः अविद्याकृतोपाधिभेदतः संसारित्वमिव भवति? यथा देहाद्यात्मत्वमात्मनः। सर्वजन्तूनां हि प्रसिद्धः देहादिषु अनात्मसु आत्मभावः निश्चितः अविद्याकृतः? यथा स्थाणौ पुरुषनिश्चयः? न च एतावता पुरुषधर्मः स्थाणोः भवति? स्थाणुधर्मो वा पुरुषस्य? तथा न चैतन्यधर्मो देहस्य? देहधर्मो वा चेतनस्य सुखदुःखमोहात्मकत्वादिः आत्मनः न युक्तः अविद्याकृतत्वाविशेषात्? जरामृत्युवत्।।न? अतुल्यत्वात् इति चेत् -- स्थाणुपुरुषौ ज्ञेयावेव सन्तौ ज्ञात्रा अन्योन्यस्मिन् अध्यस्तौ अविद्यया देहात्मनोस्तु ज्ञेयज्ञात्रोरेव इतरेतराध्यासः? इति न समः दृष्टान्तः। अतः देहधर्मः ज्ञेयोऽपि ज्ञातुरात्मनः भवतीति चेत्? न अचैतन्यादिप्रसङ्गात्। यदि हि ज्ञेयस्य देहादेः क्षेत्रस्य धर्माः सुखदुःखमोहेच्छादयः ज्ञातुः भवन्ति? तर्हि? ज्ञेयस्य क्षेत्रस्य धर्माः केचित् आत्मनः भवन्ति अविद्याध्यारोपिताः? जरामरणादयस्तु न भवन्ति इति विशेषहेतुः वक्तव्यः। न भवन्ति इति अस्ति अनुमानम् -- अविद्याध्यारोपितत्वात् जरामरणादिवत् इति? हेयत्वात्? उपादेयत्वाच्च इत्यादि। तत्र एवं सति? कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वलक्षणः संसारः ज्ञेयस्थः ज्ञातरि अविद्यया अध्यारोपितः इति? न तेन ज्ञातुः किञ्चित् दुष्यति? यथा बालैः अध्यारोपितेन आकाशस्य तलमलिनत्वादिना।।एवं च सति? सर्वक्षेत्रेष्वपि सतः भगवतः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्य संसारित्वगन्धमात्रमपि नाशङ्क्यम्। न हि क्वचिदपि लोके अविद्याध्यस्तेन धर्मेण कस्यचित् उपकारः अपकारो वा दृष्टः।।यत्तु उक्तम् -- न समः दृष्टान्तः इति? तत् असत्। कथम् अविद्याध्यासमात्रं हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः साधर्म्यं विवक्षितम्। तत् न व्यभिचरति। यत्तु ज्ञातरि व्यभिचरति इति मन्यसे? तस्यापि अनैकान्तिकत्वं दर्शितं जरादिभिः।।अविद्यावत्त्वात् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् इति चेत्? न अविद्यायाः तामसत्वात्। तामसो हि प्रत्ययः? आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः? संशयोपस्थापको वा? अग्रहणात्मको वा विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात्? तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः।। अत्र आह -- एवं तर्हि ज्ञातृधर्मः अविद्या। न करणे चक्षुषि तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषोपलब्धेः। यत्तु मन्यसे -- ज्ञातृधर्मः अविद्या? तदेव च अविद्याधर्मवत्त्वं क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् तत्र यदुक्तम् ईश्वर एव क्षेत्रज्ञः? न संसारी इत्येतत् अयुक्तमिति -- तत् न यथा करणे चक्षुषि विपरीतग्राहकादिदोषस्य दर्शनात्। न विपरीतादिग्रहणं तन्निमित्तं वा तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषः ग्रहीतुः? चक्षुषः संस्कारेण तिमिरे अपनीते ग्रहीतुः अदर्शनात् न ग्रहीतुर्धर्मः यथा तथा सर्वत्रैव अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः करणस्यैव कस्यचित् भवितुमर्हन्ति? न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य। संवेद्यत्वाच्च तेषां प्रदीपप्रकाशवत् न ज्ञातृधर्मत्वम् -- संवेद्यत्वादेव स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्तसंवेद्यत्वम् सर्वकरणवियोगे च कैवल्ये सर्ववादिभिः अविद्यादिदोषवत्त्वानभ्युपगमात्। आत्मनः यदि क्षेत्रज्ञस्य अग्न्युष्णवत् स्वः धर्मः? ततः न कदाचिदपि तेन वियोगः स्यात्। अविक्रियस्य च व्योमवत् सर्वगतस्य अमूर्तस्य आत्मनः केनचित् संयोगवियोगानुपपत्तेः? सिद्धं क्षेत्रज्ञस्य नित्यमेव ईश्वरत्वम् अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात् (गीता 13।31) इत्यादीश्वरवचनाच्च।।ननु एवं सति संसारसंसारित्वाभावे शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषः स्यादिति चेत्? न सर्वैरभ्युपगतत्वात्। सर्वैर्हि आत्मवादिभिः अभ्युपगतः दोषः न एकेन परिहर्तव्यः भवति। कथम् अभ्युपगतः इति मुक्तात्मनां हि संसारसंसारित्वव्यवहाराभावः सर्वैरेव आत्मवादिभिः इष्यते। न च तेषां शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषप्राप्तिः अभ्युपगता। तथा नः क्षेत्रज्ञानाम् ईश्वरैकत्वे सति? शास्त्रानर्थक्यं भवतु अविद्याविषये च अर्थवत्त्वम् -- यथा द्वैतिनां सर्वेषां बन्धावस्थायामेव शास्त्राद्यर्थवत्त्वम्? न मुक्तावस्थायाम्? एवम्।।ननु आत्मनः बन्धमुक्तावस्थे परमार्थत एव वस्तुभूते द्वैतिनां सर्वेषाम्। अतः हेयोपादेयतत्साधनसद्भावे शास्त्राद्यर्थवत्त्वं स्यात्। अद्वैतिनां पुनः? द्वैतस्य अपरमार्थत्वात्? अविद्याकृतत्वात् बन्धावस्थायाश्च आत्मनः अपरमार्थत्वे निर्विषयत्वात्? शास्त्राद्यानर्थक्यम् इति चेत्? न आत्मनः अवस्थाभेदानुपपत्तेः। यदि तावत् आत्मनः बन्धमुक्तावस्थे? युगपत् स्याताम्? क्रमेण वा। युगपत् तावत् विरोधात् न संभवतः स्थितिगती इव एकस्मिन्। क्रमभावित्वे च? निर्निमित्तत्वे अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गः।,अन्यनिमित्तत्वे च स्वतः अभावात् अपरमार्थत्वप्रसङ्गः। तथा च सति अभ्युपगमहानिः। किञ्च? बन्धमुक्तावस्थयोः पौर्वापर्यनिरूपणायां बन्धावस्था पूर्वं प्रकल्प्या? अनादिमती अन्तवती च तच्च प्रमाणविरुद्धम्। तथा मोक्षावस्था आदिमती अनन्ता च प्रमाणविरुद्धैव अभ्युपगम्यते। न च अवस्थावतः अवस्थान्तरं गच्छतः नित्यत्वम् उपपादयितुं शक्यम्। अथ अनित्यत्वदोषपरिहाराय बन्धमुक्तावस्थाभेदो न कल्प्यते? अतः द्वैतिनामपि शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषः अपरिहार्य एव इति समानत्वात् न अद्वैतवादिना परिहर्तव्यः दोषः।।न च शास्त्रानर्थक्यम्? यथाप्रसिद्धाविद्वत्पुरुषविषयत्वात् शास्त्रस्य। अविदुषां हि फलहेत्वोः अनात्मनोः आत्मदर्शनम्? न विदुषाम् विदुषां हि फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वदर्शने सति? तयोः अहमिति आत्मदर्शनानुपपत्तेः। न हि अत्यन्तमूढः उन्मत्तादिरपि जलाग्न्योः छायाप्रकाशयोर्वा ऐकात्म्यं पश्यति किमुत विवेकी। तस्मात् न विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रं तावत् फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वदर्शिनः भवति। न हि देवदत्त? त्वम् इदं कुरु इति कस्मिंश्चित् कर्मणि नियुक्ते? विष्णुमित्रः अहं नियुक्तः इति तत्रस्थः नियोगं श्रृण्वन्नपि प्रतिपद्यते। वियोगविषयविवेकाग्रहणात् तु उपपद्यते प्रतिपत्तिः तथा फलहेत्वोरपि।।ननु प्राकृतसंबन्धापेक्षया युक्तैव प्रतिपत्तिः शास्त्रार्थविषया -- फलहेतुभ्याम् अन्यात्मविषयदर्शनेऽपि सति -- इष्टफलहेतौ प्रवर्तितः अस्मि? अनिष्टफलहेतोश्च निवर्तितः अस्मीति यथा पितृपुत्रादीनाम् इतरेतरात्मान्यत्वदर्शने सत्यपि अन्योन्यनियोगप्रतिषेधार्थप्रतिपत्तिः। न व्यतिरिक्तात्मदर्शनप्रतिपत्तेः प्रागेव फलहेत्वोः आत्माभिमानस्य सिद्धत्वात्। प्रतिपन्ननियोगप्रतिषेधार्थो हि फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वं प्रतिपद्यते? न पूर्वम्। तस्मात् विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रम् अविद्वद्विषयम् इति सिद्धम्।।ननु स्वर्गकामो यजेत न कलञ्जं भक्षयेत् इत्यादौ आत्मव्यतिरेकदर्शिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ? केवलदेहाद्यात्मदृष्टीनां च अतः कर्तुः अभावात् शास्त्रानर्थक्यमिति चेत्? न यथाप्रसिद्धित एव प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्त्युपपत्तेः। ईश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञैकत्वदर्शी ब्रह्मवित् तावत् न प्रवर्तते। तथा नैरात्म्यवाद्यपि नास्ति परलोकः इति न प्रवर्तते। यथाप्रसिद्धितस्तु विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रश्रवणान्यथानुपपत्त्या अनुमितात्मास्तित्वः आत्मविशेषानभिज्ञः कर्मफलसंजाततृष्णः श्रद्दधानतया च प्रवर्तते। इति सर्वेषां न प्रत्यक्षम्। अतः न शास्त्रानर्थक्यम्।। विवेकिनाम् अप्रवृत्तिदर्शनात् तदनुगामिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ शास्त्रानर्थक्यम् इति चेत्? न कस्यचिदेव विवेकोपपत्तेः। अनेकेषु हि प्राणिषु कश्चिदेव विवेकी स्यात्? यथेदानीम्। न च विवेकिनम् अनुवर्तन्ते मूढाः? रागादिदोषतन्त्रत्वात् प्रवृत्तेः? अभिचरणादौ च प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात्? स्वाभाव्याच्च प्रवृत्तेः -- स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते (गीता 5।14) इति हि उक्तम्।। तस्मात् अविद्यामात्रं संसारः यथादृष्टविषयः एव। न क्षेत्रज्ञस्य केवलस्य अविद्या तत्कार्यं च। न च मिथ्याज्ञानं परमार्थवस्तु दूषयितुं समर्थम्। न हि ऊषरदेशं स्नेहेन पङ्कीकर्तुं शक्नोति मरीच्युदकम्। तथा अविद्या क्षेत्रज्ञस्य न किञ्चित् कर्तुं शक्नोति। अतश्चेदमुक्तम् -- क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) ? अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानम् (गीता 5।15) इति च।।अथ किमिदं संसारिणामिव अहमेवम् ममैवेदम् इति पण्डितानामपि श्रृणु इदं तत् पाण्डित्यम्? यत् क्षेत्रे एव आत्मदर्शनम्। यदि पुनः क्षेत्रज्ञम् अविक्रियं पश्येयुः? ततः न भोगं कर्म वा आकाङ्क्षेयुः मम स्यात् इति। विक्रियैव भोगकर्मणी। अथ एवं सति? फलार्थित्वात् अविद्वान् प्रवर्तते। विदुषः पुनः अविक्रियात्मदर्शिनः फलार्थित्वाभावात् प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तौ कार्यकरणसंघातव्यापारोपरमे निवृत्तिः उपचर्यते।।इदं च अन्यत् पाण्डित्यं केषाञ्चित् अस्तु -- क्षेत्रज्ञः ईश्वर एव। क्षेत्रं च अन्यत् क्षेत्रज्ञस्यैव विषयः। अहं तु संसारी सुखी दुःखी च। संसारोपरमश्च मम कर्तव्यः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविज्ञानेन? ध्यानेन च ईश्वरं क्षेत्रज्ञं साक्षात्कृत्वा तत्स्वरूपावस्थानेनेति। यश्च एवं बुध्यते? यश्च बोधयति? नासौ क्षेत्रज्ञः इति। एवं मन्वानः यः सः पण्डितापसदः? संसारमोक्षयोः शास्त्रस्य च अर्थवत्त्वं करोमीति आत्महा स्वयं मूढः अन्यांश्च व्यामोहयति शास्त्रार्थसंप्रदायरहितत्वात्? श्रुतहानिम् अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन्। तस्मात् असंप्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः।।यत्तूक्तम् ईश्वरस्य क्षेत्रज्ञैकत्वे संसारित्वं प्राप्नोति? क्षेत्रज्ञानां च ईश्वरैकत्वे संसारिणः अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गः इति?,एतौ दोषौ प्रत्युक्तौ विद्याविद्ययोः वैलक्षण्याभ्युपगमात् इति। कथम् अविद्यापरिकल्पितदोषेण तद्विषयं वस्तु पारमार्थिकं न दुष्यतीति। तथा च दृष्टान्तः दर्शितः -- मरीच्यम्भसा ऊषरदेशो न पङ्कीक्रियते इति। संसारिणः अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गदोषोऽपि संसारसंसारिणोः अविद्याकल्पितत्वोपपत्त्या प्रत्युक्तः।।ननु अविद्यावत्त्वमेव क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वदोषः। तत्कृतं च सुखित्वदुःखित्वादि प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते इति चेत्? न ज्ञेयस्य क्षेत्रधर्मत्वात्? ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य तत्कृतदोषानुपपत्तेः। यावत् किञ्चित् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य दोषजातम् अविद्यमानम् आसञ्जयसि? तस्य ज्ञेयत्वोपपत्तेः क्षेत्रधर्मत्वमेव? न क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मत्वम्। न च तेन क्षेत्रज्ञः दुष्यति? ज्ञेयेन ज्ञातुः संसर्गानुपपत्तेः। यदि हि संसर्गः स्यात्? ज्ञेयत्वमेव नोपपद्येत। यदि आत्मनः धर्मः अविद्यावत्त्वं दुःखित्वादि च कथं भोः प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते? कथं वा क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मः। ज्ञेयं च सर्वं क्षेत्रं ज्ञातैव क्षेत्रज्ञः इति अवधारिते? अविद्यादुःखित्वादेः क्षेत्रज्ञविशेषणत्वं क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मत्वं तस्य च प्रत्यक्षोपलभ्यत्वम् इति विरुद्धम् उच्यते अविद्यामात्रावष्टम्भात् केवलम्।।अत्र आह -- सा अविद्या कस्य इति। यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव। कस्य दृश्यते इति। अत्र उच्यते -- अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः। कथम् दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि। न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने सा कस्य इति प्रश्नो युक्तः। न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने गावः कस्य इति प्रश्नः अर्थवान् भवति। ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः। गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात् तत्संबन्धोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष प्रश्नो निरर्थकः। न तथा अविद्या तद्वांश्च प्रत्यक्षौ? यतः प्रश्नः निरर्थकः स्यात्। अप्रत्यक्षेण अविद्यावता अविद्यासंबन्धे ज्ञाते? किं तव स्यात् अविद्यायाः अनर्थहेतुत्वात् परिहर्तव्या स्यात्। यस्य अविद्या? सः तां परिहरिष्यति। ननु ममैव अविद्या। जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम्। जानामि? न तु प्रत्यक्षेण। अनुमानेन चेत् जानासि? कथं संबन्धग्रहणम् न हि तव ज्ञातुः ज्ञेयभूतया अविद्यया तत्काले संबन्धः ग्रहीतुं शक्यते? अविद्याया विषयत्वेनैव ज्ञातुः उपयुक्तत्वात्। न च ज्ञातुः अविद्यायाश्च संबन्धस्य यः ग्रहीता? ज्ञानं च अन्यत् तद्विषयं संभवति अनवस्थाप्राप्तेः। यदि ज्ञात्रापि ज्ञेयसंबन्धो ज्ञायते? अन्यः ज्ञाता कल्प्यः स्यात्? तस्यापि अन्यः? तस्यापि अन्यः इति अनवस्था अपरिहार्या। यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया? अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव। तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव? न ज्ञेयं भवति। यदा च एवम्? अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति।। ननु अयमेव दोषः? यत् दोषवत्क्षेत्रविज्ञातृत्वम् न च विज्ञानस्वरूपस्यैव अविक्रियस्य विज्ञातृत्वोपचारात् यथा उष्णतामात्रेण अग्नेः तप्तिक्रियोपचारः? तद्वत्। यथा अत्र भगवता क्रियाकारकफलात्मत्वाभावः आत्मनि स्वत एव दर्शितः -- अविद्याध्यारोपितैः एव क्रियाकारकादिः आत्मनि उपचर्यते तथा तत्र तत्र य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारम् (गीता 2।19) प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः (गीता 3।27) नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापम् (गीता 5।15) इत्यादिप्रकरणेषु दर्शितः। तथैव च व्याख्यातम् अस्माभिः। उत्तरेषु च प्रकरणेषु दर्शयिष्यामः।। हन्त तर्हि आत्मनि क्रियाकारकफलात्मतायाः स्वतः अभावे? अविद्यया च अध्यारोपितत्वे? कर्माणि अविद्वत्कर्तव्यान्येव? न विदुषाम् इति प्राप्तम्। सत्यम् एवं प्राप्तम्? एतदेव च न हि देहभृता शक्यम् (गीता 18।11) इत्यत्र दर्शयिष्यामः। सर्वशास्त्रार्थोपसंहारप्रकरणे च समासेनैव कौन्तेय निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा (गीता 18।50) इत्यत्र विशेषतः दर्शयिष्यामः। अलम् इह बहुप्रपञ्चनेन? इति उपसंह्रियते।। इदं शरीरम् (गीता13।1) इत्यादिश्लोकोपदिष्टस्य क्षेत्राध्यायार्थस्य संग्रहश्लोकः अयम् उपन्यस्यते तत्क्षेत्रं यच्च (गीता 13।3) इत्यादि? व्याचिख्यासितस्य हि अर्थस्य संग्रहोपन्यासः न्याय्यः इति --a	idam iti sarvanāmnā uktaṁ viśinaṣṭi śarīram iti। hē kauntēya? kṣatatrāṇāt? kṣayāt? kṣaraṇāt? kṣētravadvā asmin karmaphalaniṣpattēḥ kṣētram iti -- itiśabdaḥ ēvaṁśabdapadārthakaḥ -- kṣētram ityēvam abhidhīyatē kathyatē। ētat śarīraṁ kṣētraṁ yaḥ vētti vijānāti? āpādatalamastakaṁ jñānēna viṣayīkarōti? svābhāvikēna aupadēśikēna vā vēdanēna viṣayīkarōti vibhāgaśaḥ? taṁ vēditāraṁ prāhuḥ kathayanti kṣētrajñaḥ iti -- itiśabdaḥ ēvaṁśabdapadārthakaḥ ēva pūrvavat -- kṣētrajñaḥ ityēvam āhuḥ। kē tadvidaḥ tau kṣētrakṣētrajñau yē vidanti tē tadvidaḥ।।ēvaṁ kṣētrakṣētrajñau uktau। kim ētāvanmātrēṇa jñānēna jñātavyau iti na iti ucyatē -- --,kṣētrajñaṁ yathōktalakṣaṇaṁ cāpi māṁ paramēśvaram asaṁsāriṇaṁ viddhi jānīhi। sarvakṣētrēṣu yaḥ kṣētrajñaḥ brahmādistambaparyantānēkakṣētrōpādhipravibhaktaḥ? taṁ nirastasarvōpādhibhēdaṁ sadasadādiśabdapratyayāgōcaraṁ viddhi iti abhiprāyaḥ। hē bhārata? yasmāt kṣētrakṣētrajñēśvarayāthātmyavyatirēkēṇa na jñānagōcaram anyat avaśiṣṭam asti? tasmāt kṣētrakṣētrajñayōḥ jñēyabhūtayōḥ yat jñānaṁ kṣētrakṣētrajñau yēna jñānēna viṣayīkriyētē? tat jñānaṁ samyagjñānam iti matam abhiprāyaḥ mama īśvarasya viṣṇōḥ।।nanu sarvakṣētrēṣu ēka ēva īśvaraḥ? na anyaḥ tadvyatiriktaḥ bhōktā vidyatē cēt? tataḥ īśvarasya saṁsāritvaṁ prāptam īśvaravyatirēkēṇa vā saṁsāriṇaḥ anyasya abhāvāt saṁsārābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ। tacca ubhayamaniṣṭam? bandhamōkṣataddhētuśāstrānarthakyaprasaṅgāt? pratyakṣādipramāṇavirōdhācca। pratyakṣēṇa tāvat sukhaduḥkhataddhētulakṣaṇaḥ saṁsāraḥ upalabhyatē jagadvaicitryōpalabdhēśca dharmādharmanimittaḥ saṁsāraḥ anumīyatē। sarvamētat anupapannamātmēśvaraikatvē।।na jñānājñānayōḥ anyatvēnōpapattēḥ -- dūramētē viparītē viṣūcī avidyā yā ca vidyēti jñātā (ka0 u0 1।2।4)। tathā ca tayōḥ vidyāvidyāviṣayayōḥ phalabhēdō'pi viruddhaḥ nirdiṣṭaḥ -- śrēyaśca prēyaśca iti vidyāviṣayaḥ śrēyaḥ? prēyastu avidyākāryam iti। tathā ca vyāsaḥ -- dvāvimāvatha panthānau (mahā0 śānti0 241।6) ityādi? imau dvāvēva panthānau ityādi ca। iha ca dvē niṣṭhē uktē। avidyā ca saha kāryēṇa hātavyā iti śrutismr̥tinyāyēbhyaḥ avagamyatē। śrutayaḥ tāvat -- iha cēdavēdīdatha satyamasti na cēdihāvēdīnmahatī vinaṣṭiḥ (kē0 u0 2।5) tamēvaṁ vidvānamr̥ta iha bhavati (nr̥0 pū0 u0 6)। nānyaḥ panthā vidyatē'yanāya (śvē0 u0 3।8) vidvānna bibhēti kutaścana (tai0 u0 2।4)। aviduṣastu -- atha tasya bhayaṁ bhavati (tai0 u0 2।7)? avidyāyāmantarē vartamānāḥ (ka0 u0 1।2।5) brahma vēda brahmaiva bhavati (mu0 u0 3।2।9) anyō'sāvanyō'hamasmīti na sa vēda yathā paśurēvaṁ sa dēvānām ātmavit yaḥ sa idaṁ sarvaṁ bhavati (br̥ha0 u0 1।4।10) yadā carmavat (śvē0 u0 6।20) ityādyāḥ sahasraśaḥ। smr̥tayaśca -- ajñānēnāvr̥taṁ jñānaṁ tēna muhyanti jantavaḥ (gītā 5।15) ihaiva tairjitaḥ sargō yēṣāṁ sāmyē sthitaṁ manaḥ (gītā 5।19) samaṁ paśyan hi sarvatra (gītā 13।28) ityādyāḥ। nyāyataśca -- sarpānkuśāgrāṇi tathōdapānaṁ jñātvā manuṣyāḥ parivarjayanti। ajñānatastatra patanti kēcijjñānē phalaṁ paśya tathāviśiṣṭam (mahā0 śā0 201।16)। tathā ca -- dēhādiṣu ātmabuddhiḥ avidvān rāgadvēṣādiprayuktaḥ dharmādharmānuṣṭhānakr̥t jāyatē mriyatē ca iti avagamyatē dēhādivyatiriktātmadarśinaḥ rāgadvēṣādiprahāṇāpēkṣadharmādharmapravr̥ttyupaśamāt mucyantē iti na kēnacit pratyākhyātuṁ śakyaṁ nyāyataḥ। tatra ēvaṁ sati? kṣētrajñasya īśvarasyaiva sataḥ avidyākr̥tōpādhibhēdataḥ saṁsāritvamiva bhavati? yathā dēhādyātmatvamātmanaḥ। sarvajantūnāṁ hi prasiddhaḥ dēhādiṣu anātmasu ātmabhāvaḥ niścitaḥ avidyākr̥taḥ? yathā sthāṇau puruṣaniścayaḥ? na ca ētāvatā puruṣadharmaḥ sthāṇōḥ bhavati? sthāṇudharmō vā puruṣasya? tathā na caitanyadharmō dēhasya? dēhadharmō vā cētanasya sukhaduḥkhamōhātmakatvādiḥ ātmanaḥ na yuktaḥ avidyākr̥tatvāviśēṣāt? jarāmr̥tyuvat।।na? atulyatvāt iti cēt -- sthāṇupuruṣau jñēyāvēva santau jñātrā anyōnyasmin adhyastau avidyayā dēhātmanōstu jñēyajñātrōrēva itarētarādhyāsaḥ? iti na samaḥ dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ। ataḥ dēhadharmaḥ jñēyō'pi jñāturātmanaḥ bhavatīti cēt? na acaitanyādiprasaṅgāt। yadi hi jñēyasya dēhādēḥ kṣētrasya dharmāḥ sukhaduḥkhamōhēcchādayaḥ jñātuḥ bhavanti? tarhi? jñēyasya kṣētrasya dharmāḥ kēcit ātmanaḥ bhavanti avidyādhyārōpitāḥ? jarāmaraṇādayastu na bhavanti iti viśēṣahētuḥ vaktavyaḥ। na bhavanti iti asti anumānam -- avidyādhyārōpitatvāt jarāmaraṇādivat iti? hēyatvāt? upādēyatvācca ityādi। tatra ēvaṁ sati? kartr̥tvabhōktr̥tvalakṣaṇaḥ saṁsāraḥ jñēyasthaḥ jñātari avidyayā adhyārōpitaḥ iti? na tēna jñātuḥ kiñcit duṣyati? yathā bālaiḥ adhyārōpitēna ākāśasya talamalinatvādinā।।ēvaṁ ca sati? sarvakṣētrēṣvapi sataḥ bhagavataḥ kṣētrajñasya īśvarasya saṁsāritvagandhamātramapi nāśaṅkyam। na hi kvacidapi lōkē avidyādhyastēna dharmēṇa kasyacit upakāraḥ apakārō vā dr̥ṣṭaḥ।।yattu uktam -- na samaḥ dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ iti? tat asat। katham avidyādhyāsamātraṁ hi dr̥ṣṭāntadārṣṭāntikayōḥ sādharmyaṁ vivakṣitam। tat na vyabhicarati। yattu jñātari vyabhicarati iti manyasē? tasyāpi anaikāntikatvaṁ darśitaṁ jarādibhiḥ।।avidyāvattvāt kṣētrajñasya saṁsāritvam iti cēt? na avidyāyāḥ tāmasatvāt। tāmasō hi pratyayaḥ? āvaraṇātmakatvāt avidyā viparītagrāhakaḥ? saṁśayōpasthāpakō vā? agrahaṇātmakō vā vivēkaprakāśabhāvē tadabhāvāt? tāmasē ca āvaraṇātmakē timirādidōṣē sati agrahaṇādēḥ avidyātrayasya upalabdhēḥ।। atra āha -- ēvaṁ tarhi jñātr̥dharmaḥ avidyā। na karaṇē cakṣuṣi taimirikatvādidōṣōpalabdhēḥ। yattu manyasē -- jñātr̥dharmaḥ avidyā? tadēva ca avidyādharmavattvaṁ kṣētrajñasya saṁsāritvam tatra yaduktam īśvara ēva kṣētrajñaḥ? na saṁsārī ityētat ayuktamiti -- tat na yathā karaṇē cakṣuṣi viparītagrāhakādidōṣasya darśanāt। na viparītādigrahaṇaṁ tannimittaṁ vā taimirikatvādidōṣaḥ grahītuḥ? cakṣuṣaḥ saṁskārēṇa timirē apanītē grahītuḥ adarśanāt na grahīturdharmaḥ yathā tathā sarvatraiva agrahaṇaviparītasaṁśayapratyayāstannimittāḥ karaṇasyaiva kasyacit bhavitumarhanti? na jñātuḥ kṣētrajñasya। saṁvēdyatvācca tēṣāṁ pradīpaprakāśavat na jñātr̥dharmatvam -- saṁvēdyatvādēva svātmavyatiriktasaṁvēdyatvam sarvakaraṇaviyōgē ca kaivalyē sarvavādibhiḥ avidyādidōṣavattvānabhyupagamāt। ātmanaḥ yadi kṣētrajñasya agnyuṣṇavat svaḥ dharmaḥ? tataḥ na kadācidapi tēna viyōgaḥ syāt। avikriyasya ca vyōmavat sarvagatasya amūrtasya ātmanaḥ kēnacit saṁyōgaviyōgānupapattēḥ? siddhaṁ kṣētrajñasya nityamēva īśvaratvam anāditvānnirguṇatvāt (gītā 13।31) ityādīśvaravacanācca।।nanu ēvaṁ sati saṁsārasaṁsāritvābhāvē śāstrānarthakyādidōṣaḥ syāditi cēt? na sarvairabhyupagatatvāt। sarvairhi ātmavādibhiḥ abhyupagataḥ dōṣaḥ na ēkēna parihartavyaḥ bhavati। katham abhyupagataḥ iti muktātmanāṁ hi saṁsārasaṁsāritvavyavahārābhāvaḥ sarvairēva ātmavādibhiḥ iṣyatē। na ca tēṣāṁ śāstrānarthakyādidōṣaprāptiḥ abhyupagatā। tathā naḥ kṣētrajñānām īśvaraikatvē sati? śāstrānarthakyaṁ bhavatu avidyāviṣayē ca arthavattvam -- yathā dvaitināṁ sarvēṣāṁ bandhāvasthāyāmēva śāstrādyarthavattvam? na muktāvasthāyām? ēvam।।nanu ātmanaḥ bandhamuktāvasthē paramārthata ēva vastubhūtē dvaitināṁ sarvēṣām। ataḥ hēyōpādēyatatsādhanasadbhāvē śāstrādyarthavattvaṁ syāt। advaitināṁ punaḥ? dvaitasya aparamārthatvāt? avidyākr̥tatvāt bandhāvasthāyāśca ātmanaḥ aparamārthatvē nirviṣayatvāt? śāstrādyānarthakyam iti cēt? na ātmanaḥ avasthābhēdānupapattēḥ। yadi tāvat ātmanaḥ bandhamuktāvasthē? yugapat syātām? kramēṇa vā। yugapat tāvat virōdhāt na saṁbhavataḥ sthitigatī iva ēkasmin। kramabhāvitvē ca? nirnimittatvē anirmōkṣaprasaṅgaḥ।,anyanimittatvē ca svataḥ abhāvāt aparamārthatvaprasaṅgaḥ। tathā ca sati abhyupagamahāniḥ। kiñca? bandhamuktāvasthayōḥ paurvāparyanirūpaṇāyāṁ bandhāvasthā pūrvaṁ prakalpyā? anādimatī antavatī ca tacca pramāṇaviruddham। tathā mōkṣāvasthā ādimatī anantā ca pramāṇaviruddhaiva abhyupagamyatē। na ca avasthāvataḥ avasthāntaraṁ gacchataḥ nityatvam upapādayituṁ śakyam। atha anityatvadōṣaparihārāya bandhamuktāvasthābhēdō na kalpyatē? ataḥ dvaitināmapi śāstrānarthakyādidōṣaḥ aparihārya ēva iti samānatvāt na advaitavādinā parihartavyaḥ dōṣaḥ।।na ca śāstrānarthakyam? yathāprasiddhāvidvatpuruṣaviṣayatvāt śāstrasya। aviduṣāṁ hi phalahētvōḥ anātmanōḥ ātmadarśanam? na viduṣām viduṣāṁ hi phalahētubhyām ātmanaḥ anyatvadarśanē sati? tayōḥ ahamiti ātmadarśanānupapattēḥ। na hi atyantamūḍhaḥ unmattādirapi jalāgnyōḥ chāyāprakāśayōrvā aikātmyaṁ paśyati kimuta vivēkī। tasmāt na vidhipratiṣēdhaśāstraṁ tāvat phalahētubhyām ātmanaḥ anyatvadarśinaḥ bhavati। na hi dēvadatta? tvam idaṁ kuru iti kasmiṁścit karmaṇi niyuktē? viṣṇumitraḥ ahaṁ niyuktaḥ iti tatrasthaḥ niyōgaṁ śrr̥ṇvannapi pratipadyatē। viyōgaviṣayavivēkāgrahaṇāt tu upapadyatē pratipattiḥ tathā phalahētvōrapi।।nanu prākr̥tasaṁbandhāpēkṣayā yuktaiva pratipattiḥ śāstrārthaviṣayā -- phalahētubhyām anyātmaviṣayadarśanē'pi sati -- iṣṭaphalahētau pravartitaḥ asmi? aniṣṭaphalahētōśca nivartitaḥ asmīti yathā pitr̥putrādīnām itarētarātmānyatvadarśanē satyapi anyōnyaniyōgapratiṣēdhārthapratipattiḥ। na vyatiriktātmadarśanapratipattēḥ prāgēva phalahētvōḥ ātmābhimānasya siddhatvāt। pratipannaniyōgapratiṣēdhārthō hi phalahētubhyām ātmanaḥ anyatvaṁ pratipadyatē? na pūrvam। tasmāt vidhipratiṣēdhaśāstram avidvadviṣayam iti siddham।।nanu svargakāmō yajēta na kalañjaṁ bhakṣayēt ityādau ātmavyatirēkadarśinām apravr̥ttau? kēvaladēhādyātmadr̥ṣṭīnāṁ ca ataḥ kartuḥ abhāvāt śāstrānarthakyamiti cēt? na yathāprasiddhita ēva pravr̥ttinivr̥ttyupapattēḥ। īśvarakṣētrajñaikatvadarśī brahmavit tāvat na pravartatē। tathā nairātmyavādyapi nāsti paralōkaḥ iti na pravartatē। yathāprasiddhitastu vidhipratiṣēdhaśāstraśravaṇānyathānupapattyā anumitātmāstitvaḥ ātmaviśēṣānabhijñaḥ karmaphalasaṁjātatr̥ṣṇaḥ śraddadhānatayā ca pravartatē। iti sarvēṣāṁ na pratyakṣam। ataḥ na śāstrānarthakyam।। vivēkinām apravr̥ttidarśanāt tadanugāminām apravr̥ttau śāstrānarthakyam iti cēt? na kasyacidēva vivēkōpapattēḥ। anēkēṣu hi prāṇiṣu kaścidēva vivēkī syāt? yathēdānīm। na ca vivēkinam anuvartantē mūḍhāḥ? rāgādidōṣatantratvāt pravr̥ttēḥ? abhicaraṇādau ca pravr̥ttidarśanāt? svābhāvyācca pravr̥ttēḥ -- svabhāvastu pravartatē (gītā 5।14) iti hi uktam।। tasmāt avidyāmātraṁ saṁsāraḥ yathādr̥ṣṭaviṣayaḥ ēva। na kṣētrajñasya kēvalasya avidyā tatkāryaṁ ca। na ca mithyājñānaṁ paramārthavastu dūṣayituṁ samartham। na hi ūṣaradēśaṁ snēhēna paṅkīkartuṁ śaknōti marīcyudakam। tathā avidyā kṣētrajñasya na kiñcit kartuṁ śaknōti। ataścēdamuktam -- kṣētrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi (gītā 13।2) ? ajñānēnāvr̥taṁ jñānam (gītā 5।15) iti ca।।atha kimidaṁ saṁsāriṇāmiva ahamēvam mamaivēdam iti paṇḍitānāmapi śrr̥ṇu idaṁ tat pāṇḍityam? yat kṣētrē ēva ātmadarśanam। yadi punaḥ kṣētrajñam avikriyaṁ paśyēyuḥ? tataḥ na bhōgaṁ karma vā ākāṅkṣēyuḥ mama syāt iti। vikriyaiva bhōgakarmaṇī। atha ēvaṁ sati? phalārthitvāt avidvān pravartatē। viduṣaḥ punaḥ avikriyātmadarśinaḥ phalārthitvābhāvāt pravr̥ttyanupapattau kāryakaraṇasaṁghātavyāpārōparamē nivr̥ttiḥ upacaryatē।।idaṁ ca anyat pāṇḍityaṁ kēṣāñcit astu -- kṣētrajñaḥ īśvara ēva। kṣētraṁ ca anyat kṣētrajñasyaiva viṣayaḥ। ahaṁ tu saṁsārī sukhī duḥkhī ca। saṁsārōparamaśca mama kartavyaḥ kṣētrakṣētrajñavijñānēna? dhyānēna ca īśvaraṁ kṣētrajñaṁ sākṣātkr̥tvā tatsvarūpāvasthānēnēti। yaśca ēvaṁ budhyatē? yaśca bōdhayati? nāsau kṣētrajñaḥ iti। ēvaṁ manvānaḥ yaḥ saḥ paṇḍitāpasadaḥ? saṁsāramōkṣayōḥ śāstrasya ca arthavattvaṁ karōmīti ātmahā svayaṁ mūḍhaḥ anyāṁśca vyāmōhayati śāstrārthasaṁpradāyarahitatvāt? śrutahānim aśrutakalpanāṁ ca kurvan। tasmāt asaṁpradāyavit sarvaśāstravidapi mūrkhavadēva upēkṣaṇīyaḥ।।yattūktam īśvarasya kṣētrajñaikatvē saṁsāritvaṁ prāpnōti? kṣētrajñānāṁ ca īśvaraikatvē saṁsāriṇaḥ abhāvāt saṁsārābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ iti?,ētau dōṣau pratyuktau vidyāvidyayōḥ vailakṣaṇyābhyupagamāt iti। katham avidyāparikalpitadōṣēṇa tadviṣayaṁ vastu pāramārthikaṁ na duṣyatīti। tathā ca dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ darśitaḥ -- marīcyambhasā ūṣaradēśō na paṅkīkriyatē iti। saṁsāriṇaḥ abhāvāt saṁsārābhāvaprasaṅgadōṣō'pi saṁsārasaṁsāriṇōḥ avidyākalpitatvōpapattyā pratyuktaḥ।।nanu avidyāvattvamēva kṣētrajñasya saṁsāritvadōṣaḥ। tatkr̥taṁ ca sukhitvaduḥkhitvādi pratyakṣam upalabhyatē iti cēt? na jñēyasya kṣētradharmatvāt? jñātuḥ kṣētrajñasya tatkr̥tadōṣānupapattēḥ। yāvat kiñcit kṣētrajñasya dōṣajātam avidyamānam āsañjayasi? tasya jñēyatvōpapattēḥ kṣētradharmatvamēva? na kṣētrajñadharmatvam। na ca tēna kṣētrajñaḥ duṣyati? jñēyēna jñātuḥ saṁsargānupapattēḥ। yadi hi saṁsargaḥ syāt? jñēyatvamēva nōpapadyēta। yadi ātmanaḥ dharmaḥ avidyāvattvaṁ duḥkhitvādi ca kathaṁ bhōḥ pratyakṣam upalabhyatē? kathaṁ vā kṣētrajñadharmaḥ। jñēyaṁ ca sarvaṁ kṣētraṁ jñātaiva kṣētrajñaḥ iti avadhāritē? avidyāduḥkhitvādēḥ kṣētrajñaviśēṣaṇatvaṁ kṣētrajñadharmatvaṁ tasya ca pratyakṣōpalabhyatvam iti viruddham ucyatē avidyāmātrāvaṣṭambhāt kēvalam।।atra āha -- sā avidyā kasya iti। yasya dr̥śyatē tasya ēva। kasya dr̥śyatē iti। atra ucyatē -- avidyā kasya dr̥śyatē iti praśnaḥ nirarthakaḥ। katham dr̥śyatē cēt avidyā tadvantamapi paśyasi। na ca tadvati upalabhyamānē sā kasya iti praśnō yuktaḥ। na hi gōmati upalabhyamānē gāvaḥ kasya iti praśnaḥ arthavān bhavati। nanu viṣamō dr̥ṣṭāntaḥ। gavāṁ tadvataśca pratyakṣatvāt tatsaṁbandhō'pi pratyakṣa praśnō nirarthakaḥ। na tathā avidyā tadvāṁśca pratyakṣau? yataḥ praśnaḥ nirarthakaḥ syāt। apratyakṣēṇa avidyāvatā avidyāsaṁbandhē jñātē? kiṁ tava syāt avidyāyāḥ anarthahētutvāt parihartavyā syāt। yasya avidyā? saḥ tāṁ parihariṣyati। nanu mamaiva avidyā। jānāsi tarhi avidyāṁ tadvantaṁ ca ātmānam। jānāmi? na tu pratyakṣēṇa। anumānēna cēt jānāsi? kathaṁ saṁbandhagrahaṇam na hi tava jñātuḥ jñēyabhūtayā avidyayā tatkālē saṁbandhaḥ grahītuṁ śakyatē? avidyāyā viṣayatvēnaiva jñātuḥ upayuktatvāt। na ca jñātuḥ avidyāyāśca saṁbandhasya yaḥ grahītā? jñānaṁ ca anyat tadviṣayaṁ saṁbhavati anavasthāprāptēḥ। yadi jñātrāpi jñēyasaṁbandhō jñāyatē? anyaḥ jñātā kalpyaḥ syāt? tasyāpi anyaḥ? tasyāpi anyaḥ iti anavasthā aparihāryā। yadi punaḥ avidyā jñēyā? anyadvā jñēyaṁ jñēyamēva। tathā jñātāpi jñātaiva? na jñēyaṁ bhavati। yadā ca ēvam? avidyāduḥkhitvādyaiḥ na jñātuḥ kṣētrajñasya kiñcit duṣyati।। nanu ayamēva dōṣaḥ? yat dōṣavatkṣētravijñātr̥tvam na ca vijñānasvarūpasyaiva avikriyasya vijñātr̥tvōpacārāt yathā uṣṇatāmātrēṇa agnēḥ taptikriyōpacāraḥ? tadvat। yathā atra bhagavatā kriyākārakaphalātmatvābhāvaḥ ātmani svata ēva darśitaḥ -- avidyādhyārōpitaiḥ ēva kriyākārakādiḥ ātmani upacaryatē tathā tatra tatra ya ēnaṁ vētti hantāram (gītā 2।19) prakr̥tēḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ (gītā 3।27) nādattē kasyacitpāpam (gītā 5।15) ityādiprakaraṇēṣu darśitaḥ। tathaiva ca vyākhyātam asmābhiḥ। uttarēṣu ca prakaraṇēṣu darśayiṣyāmaḥ।। hanta tarhi ātmani kriyākārakaphalātmatāyāḥ svataḥ abhāvē? avidyayā ca adhyārōpitatvē? karmāṇi avidvatkartavyānyēva? na viduṣām iti prāptam। satyam ēvaṁ prāptam? ētadēva ca na hi dēhabhr̥tā śakyam (gītā 18।11) ityatra darśayiṣyāmaḥ। sarvaśāstrārthōpasaṁhāraprakaraṇē ca samāsēnaiva kauntēya niṣṭhā jñānasya yā parā (gītā 18।50) ityatra viśēṣataḥ darśayiṣyāmaḥ। alam iha bahuprapañcanēna? iti upasaṁhriyatē।। idaṁ śarīram (gītā13।1) ityādiślōkōpadiṣṭasya kṣētrādhyāyārthasya saṁgrahaślōkaḥ ayam upanyasyatē tatkṣētraṁ yacca (gītā 13।3) ityādi? vyācikhyāsitasya hi arthasya saṁgrahōpanyāsaḥ nyāyyaḥ iti --	The Lord specifies the body as the object referred to by the pronoun idam (this). O son of Kunti, (this body) abhidhiyate, is referred to; ksetram iti, as the field-because it is protected (tra) against injury (ksata), or because it perishes (ksi), wastes away (ksar), or because the results of actions get fulfilled in the body as in a field (ksetra). The word iti is used in the sense of 'as'. They-who?-tadvidah, who are versed in this, who know the 'field' and the 'knower of the field'; ahuh, call; tam, him, the knower; yah, who; vetti etat, is concious of, knows, it, the body, the field-makes it, from head to foot, an abject of his knowledge; makes it an object of perception as a separate entity, through knowledge which is spontaneous or is acquired through instruction; ksetrajna iti, as the knower of the field. As before, the word iti is used in the sense of 'as'. They call him as the knower of the field. Is it that the field and the knower of the field thus mentioned are to be understood through this much knowledge only? The answer is, no. Ca api, and; viddhi, understand; mam, Me, the supreme God who is transcendental; to be the ksetrajnam, 'Knower of the field' with the characterisitics noted above; sarva-ksetresu, in all the fields. The idea is this: Know the 'Knower of the field'- who has become diversified by limiting adjuncts in the form of numerous 'fields' ranging from Brahma to a clump of grass-as free from differentiations resulting from all the limiting adjuncts, and as beyond the range of such words and ideas as existece, nonexistence, etc. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, since there remains nothing to be known apart from the true nature of the field, the knower of the field and God, therefore; tat, that; is jnanam, Knowledge, right knowledge; yat, which; is the jnanam, knowledge; ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, of the field and the knower of the field-which are the two knowables-, and by which Knowledge the field and the knower of the field are made objects of knowledge. This is mama, My, God Vishu's; matam, opinion. Objection: Well, if it be that in all the field there exists God alone, and none else other than Him, as the enjoyer, then God will become a mundane being; or, due to the absence of any mundane creature other than God, there will arise the contingency of the negation of mundance existence. And both these are undesirable, since the scriptures dealing with bondage, Liberation and their causes will become useless, and also becuase they contradict such valid means of knowledge as direct perception. In the first place, mundane existence which is characterized by happiness, sorrow and their cause is apprehended through direct perception. Besides, from the perception of variety in the world it can be inferred that mundane existence results from virtue and vice. All this becomes illogical if God and the individual soul be one. Reply: No, because this becomes justifiable owing to the difference between Knowledge and ignorance. 'These two, viz that which is know as Knowledge and that which is known as ignorance are widely contradictory, and they follow divergent courses' (Ka. 1.2.4.); and similarly, the different results, viz Liberation and enjoyment, belonging (respectively) to those Knowledge and ignorance, have also been pointed out to be contrary by saying that Liberation is the goal of Knowledge, and enjoyment is the result of ignorance (see Ka. 1.2.2). Vyasa, also has said so: 'Now, there are these two paths' (Mbh Sa. 241.6) etc. and, 'There are only these two paths,' etc. Here (in the Gita) also, two kinds of steadfastness have been stated. And it is understood from the Vedas, the Smrtis and reason that ignorance together with its effects has to be destroyed by Knowledge. As for the Vedic texts, they are: 'If one has realized here, then there is truth; if he has not realized here, then there is great destruction' (Ke. 2.5); 'Knowing Him in this way, one becomes Immortal here' (Nr. Pu. 6); 'There is no other path to go by' (Sv. 3.8); 'The enlightened man is not afraid of anything' (Tai. 2.9.1). On the other hand, (the texts) with regard to the unenlightened person are: 'Then, he is smitten with fear' (Tai. 2.7.1); 'Living in the midst of ognorance' (Ka. 1.2.5); One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman' (Mu. 3.2.9); '(While he who worships another god thinking,) "He is one, and I am another," does not know. He is like an animal to the gods' (Br. 1.4.10). He who is a knower of the Self, 'He becomes all this (Universe)' (Br. 1.4.10); 'When men will fold up space like (folding) leather, (then) there will be cessation of sorrow, without knowing the Deity' (Sv. 6.9). There are thousands of texts like these. And the Smrti texts (from the Gita) are: 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance. Thery the creatures become deluded' (5.15); 'Here itself is rirth conered by them whose minds are established on sameness' (5.19); 'Since by seeing eally the God who is present alike everywhere (he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he attains the supreme Goal)' (13.28), etc. And as for reason, there is the text, 'Men avoid snakes, tips of kusa-grass as also well when they are aware of them. Some fall into them owing to ignorance. Thus, see the special result arising from knowledge' (Mbh. Sa. 201.17). Similarly, it is known that an unelightened person, who identifies himself with the body etc. and who practises righteousness and unrighteousness under the impulsion of attachment and aversion, takes birth and dies. It cannot be reasonably denied by anyone that, those who see the Self as different from the body etc. become liberated as a result of the cessation of righteous and unrighteous conduct, which depends on the destruction of attachment and aversion. The being so, the Knower of the field, who is reality is God Himself, appears to have become a mundane soul owing to the various adjuncts which are products of ignorance; as for instance the individual soul becomes identified with the body etc. For it is a well-known fact in the case of all creatures that their self-identify with the body etc. which are not-Self is definitely caused by ignorance. Just as, when a stump, of a tree is firmly regarded as a man, the alities of a man do not thery come to exist in the stump, nor do the alities of the stump come to the person, similarly the property ofconsciousness does not come to the body, nor those of the body to consciousness. It is not proper that the Self should be identified with happiness, sorrow, delusion, etc., since they, like decrepitude and death, are eally the products of ignorance. Objection: May it not be said that this is not so, becuase of dissimilarity? The stump and the man, which are verily objects of perception, are superimposed on each other through ignorance by their perceiver. On the other hand, in the case of the body and the Self,, the mutual superimposition occurs verily between a knower and an object of perception. Thus, the illustration is not eally applicable. Therefore, may it not be that the properties of the body, though objects of knowledge, belong to the Self which is the knower? Reply: No, since there arises the contingency of (the Self) becoming devoid of consciousness! If alities such as happiness, sorrow, delusion, desire, etc. of the body etc., which are the field and are objects of knowledge, indeed belong to the knower, then it will be necessary to explain the particular reason why some of the alities of the object of knowledge-the field-superimposed through ignorance belong to the Self, while decrepitude, death, etc. do not. (On the contrary) it is possible to infer that they (happiness etc.) do not pertain to the Self, since, like decrepitude etc., they are superimposed on the Self through ignorance, and because they are either avoidable or acceptable. This being so, the mundane state, consisting of agentship and enjoyership pertaining to the objects of knowledge, is superimposed on the knower through ignorance. Hence, nothing of the knower is affected thery-in the same way as nothing of the sky is affected by the superimposition of surface, diret, etc. (on it) by fools. Such being the case, not the least touch of the mundane state is to be apprehended with regard to the almighty [see footnote on p.5, and p.168.] God, the Knower of the field, even though He exists in all the fields. For it is nowhere seen in the world that anybody is benefitted or harmed by a ality attributed to him through ignorance. As for the statement that the illustration is not eally applicable-that is wrong. Objection: How? Reply: Because what is intended as common between the illustration and the thing illustrated is merely the superimposition through ignorance. There is no disagreement as to that. However, as for your contention that the illustration fails with regard to the Knower, that too has been shown to be inapt by citing the example of decrepitude etc. [If it be held that objects of experience may be superimposed on one another, but they cannot be superimposed on the experiencer, the answer is that this cannot be a universal proposition. For decrepitude and death, which are matters of experience, are superimposed on the Self, the experiencer.] Objection: May it not be that the Knower of the field becomes a mundane being owing to his having ignorance? Reply: No, because ignorance is of the nature of tamas. Since ignorance has the nature of covering, it is indeed a notion born of tamas; it makes one perceive contrarily, or it arouses doubt, or it leads to non-perception. For it disappears with the dawn of discrimination. And the three kind of ignorance, viz non-perception etc. [Etc: false perception and doubt.], are experienced when there are such defects as blindness etc. which are forms of tamas and have the nature of veiling. [It is known through the process of agreement and difference that false perception etc. arise from some defects,and they are not the alities of the Self.] Objection: Here it is asserted that if this be the case, then ignorance is a ality of the knower? Reply: No, for the defects such as blindness are seen to belong to the eye which is an organ. As for your notion that 'ignorance is a ality of the experiencer, and the very fact of being possessed of the ality of ignorance is what constitutes the mundane state of the Knower of the field; the assertion which was made (by the Vedantin) in that connection, "that the Knower of th field is God Himself and not a mundane being, " is improper,'-this is not so. As for example: Since such defects as false perception etc. are seen to belong to the organ eye, therefore false perception etc. or their causes, viz defects like blindness etc., do not belong to the perceiver. Just as blindness of the eyes does not pertain to the perceiver since on being curved through treatment it is not seen in the perceiver, similarly notions like non-perception, false perception, doubt, and their causes should, in all cases, pertain to some organ; not to the perceiver, the Knower of the field. And since they are objects of perception, they are not alities of the Knower in the same way that light is of a lamp. Just because they are objects of perception, they are cognized as different from one's own Self. Besides, it is denied by all schools of thought that in Liberation, when all the organs depart, there is any association with such defects as ignorance etc. If they (the defects) be the alities of the Self Itself, the Knower of the field, as heat is of fire, then there can never be a dissociation from them. Again, since there can be no association with or dissociation from anything for the immutable, formless Self which is all-pervading like space, therefore it is established that the Knower of the field is ever identical with God. This follows alos from the utternance of the Lord, 'Being without beginning and without alities' (31), etc. Objection: Well, if this be so, then, owing to the nonexistence of the world and the mundane creatures, there will arise the defect of the uselessness of the scriptures, etc. Reply: No, since this (defect) is admitted by all. A defect that is admitted by all who believe in the Self is not to be explained by one alone! Objection: How has this been admitted by all? Reply: People of all schools of thought who believe in the Self admit that there is no worldly behaviour or the behaviour of a worldling in the liberated ones. Yet, in their case (i.e. in those various schools), it is not admitted that there is any possibility of such a defect as the scriptures becoming useless, etc. Similarly, in our case let the scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified with God; and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance. This is just as in the case of all the dualists, where it is admitted that the scriptures etc. become useful in the state of bondage, not in the state of Liberation. Objection: Well, for us all dualists, bondage and Liberation of the Self are real in the truest sense. So, when things to be renounced or accepted as also the means thereto are real, the scriptures etc. become meaningful. On the other hand, may it not be that for the non-dualists, since duality deos not exist in truest sense, it being the creation of ignorance, therefore the state of bondage of the Self is not ultimately real, and hence the scriptures etc. become purposeless as they remain shorn of a subject-matter? Reply: No, since it is not logical that the Self should have different states. If this were possible at all, then the states of bondage and freedom of the Self should be simultaneous, or successive. As to that, they cannot occur simultaneously, since they are contradictory-like rest and motion in the same object. Should they occur successively and without being caused, then there will arise the contingency of there being no Liberation; if they occur through some cause, then, since they do not exist inherently, there arises the contingency of their being ultimately unreal. In this case also the assumption becomes falsified. Moreover, when ascertaining the precedence and succession of the states of bondage and Liberation, the state of bondage will have to be considered as being the earlier and having no beginning, but an end. And that is contrary to valid means of knowledge. Similarly it will have to be admitted that the state of Liberation has a beginning, but no end- which is certainly opposed to valid means of knowledge. And it is not possible to established eternality for something that has states nd undergoes a change from one state to another. On the other hand, if for avoiding the defect of non-eternality the different states of bondage and Liberation be not assumed, then, even for the dualists such defects as the purposelessness of the scriptures become certainly unavoidable. Thus, the situation being similar (for both), it is not for the Advaitin (alone) to refute the objection. Nor do the scriptures become purposeless, because the scriptures are applicable to the commonly known unenlightened person. It is indeed in the case of the ignorant person-not in the case of the enlightened one-that there occurs the perception of identity of the Self with the effect (i.e. enjoyership) and the cause (i.e. agentship) which are not-Self. For, in the case of the enlightened persons, it is impossible that, after the dawn of the realization of non-identity of the Self with effect and cause, they can have Self identification with these as 'I'. Surely, not even a downright fool, or a lunatic and such others, see water and fire or shade and light as identical; what to speak of a discriminating person! Therefore, such being the case, the scriptures dealing with injunction and prohibition do not concern a person who sees the distinction of the Self from effect and cause. For, when Devadatta is ordered to do som work with the words, 'You do this,' Visnumitra who happens to be there does not, even on hearing the ?nd, conclude, 'I have been ordered.' But this conclusion is reasonable when the person for whom the order is meant is not understood. So also with regard to cause and effect. Objection: Can it not be that, even after having realized the Self as different from effect and cuase, it is ite reasonable from the standpoint of natural relationship, [Natural relationship-Self-identification with the body through ignorance.] that with regard to the scriptures one should have the understanding, 'I am enjoined to adotp the means that yields a desired result, and am porhibited from adopting the means that leads to an undesirable result'? As for instance, in the case of a father and son, or between others, even though there exists the awareness of the distinction between each other, still there is the comprehension of the implication of the injunctions and prohibitions meant for one as being also meant for the other. [In the (Br. (1.5.17) we read, 'Now therefore the entrusting: When a man thinks he will die, he says to his son, "You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world,"' etc. It has been enjoined here in this manner that the son should accept as his own all the duties thus entrusted to him by the father. Similarly, it is understood that when a son in unable to perform his own duties, the father has to accept them. So also in the case of brothers and others. Thus, in the case of the enlightened person also, though there is a comprehension of his own distinction from effect and cause, still, owing to his earlier relationship with ignorance, body, etc., there is no contradiction in his understanding that the injunctions and prohibitions are meant for him.] Reply: No, since identification of the Self with effect and cause is possible only before attaining the knowledge of the Self as distinct (from them). It is only after one has followed (or eschewed) what is enjoined or prohibited by the scriptures that he comprehends his own distinction from the effect and cause; not before. [In B.S. (3.4.26-7) it is said that the merit earned by the performance of scriptural duties helps to generate knowledge of Brahman. Therefore these duties are not meant for the enlightened. (By following what is enjoined, and avoiding what is prohibited, one's mind becomes purified, and then only one understands he is different from cause and effect-agentship and enjoyership.-Tr.)] Therefore it is established that the scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions are meant for the ignorant. Objection: Well, if (injunctions and prohibitions) such as, 'One who desires heaven shall perform sacrifices', 'One should not eat poisoned meat,' etc. be not observed by those who have realized the Self as distinct and by those who view only the body as the Self, then, from the absence of any observer of those (injunctions etc.) there would follow the uselessness of the scriptures. Reply: No, because engagement in or abstention from actions follows from what is ordained by the scriptures. As for one who has realized the identity of the Lord and the knower of the field, one who has realized Brahman-he does not engage in action. Similarly, even the person who does not believe in the Self does not engage in action, under the idea that the other world does not exist. However, one who has inferred the existence of the Self on the ground of the wellknown fact that study of the scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions becomes otherwise purposeless, who has no knowledge of the essential nature of the Self, and in whom has arisen hankering for the results of actions-he faithfully engages in action. This is a matter of direct perception to all to us. Hence, the scriptures are not purposeless. Objection: May it not be that the scriptures will become meaningless when, by noticing abstention from action in the case of men with discrimination, their followers too will abstain? Reply: No, because discrimination arises in some rare person only. For, as at present, some rare one among many people comes to possess discrimination. Besides, fools do not follow one who has discrimination, because (their) engagement in action is impelled by defects such as attachment etc. And they are seen to get engaged in such acts as black magic. Moreover, engagement in action is natural. Verily has it been said (by the Lord), 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Therefore, the mundane state consists of nothing but ignorance, and is an object of perception (to the ignorant man who sees it) just as it appears to him. Ignorance and its effects do not belong to the Knower of the feild, the Absolute. Moreover, false knowledge cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot make a desert muddy with its moisture. Similarly, ignorance cannot act in any way on the Knower of the field. Hence has this been said, 'And understand Me to be knower of the field,' as also, 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance' (5.15). Objection: Then, what is this that even the learned say like the worldly people, 'Thus [Possessed of aristorcracy etc.] am I,' 'This [Body, wife, etc.] verily belongs to Me'? Reply: Listen. This is that learnedness which consists in seeing the field as the Self! On the contrary, should they realize the unchanging Knower of the field, then they will not crave for enjoyment or action with the idea, 'May this be mine.' Enjoyment and action are mere perversions. This being so, the ignorant man engages in action owing to his desire for results. On the other hand, in the case of an enlightened person who has realized the changeless Self, engagement in aciton in impossible because of the absence of desire for results. Hence, when the activities of the aggregate of body and organs cease, his withdrawal from action is spoken of in a figurative sense. Some may have this other kind of learnedness: 'The Knower of the field is God Himself; and the field is something different and an object of knowledge to the Knower of the field. But I am a mundane being, happy and sorrowful. And it is my duty to bring about the cessation of worldly existence through the knowledge of the field and the Knower of the field, and by continuing to dwell in His true nature after directly perceiving through meditation God, the Knower of the field,' and he who, understands thus, and he who teaches that 'he (the taught) is not the Knower of the field,' and he who, being under such an idea, thinks, 'I shall render meaningful the scriptures dealing with the worldly state and Liberation'-is the meanest among the learned. That Self-immolator, being devoid of any link with the traditional interpreters of the purport of the scriptures, misinterprets what is enjoined in the scriptures and imagines what is not spoken there, and thery himself becoming deluded, befools others too. Hence, one who is not a knower of the traditional interpretation is to be ignored like a fool, though he may be versed in all the scriptures. As for the objection that, if God be one with the knower of the field, He will then become a mundane being, and that, if the knowers of the fields are one with God, then from the nonexistence of mundane beings will follow the absence of the mundane state, -these two objections have been refuted by admitting Knowledge and ignorance as having different characteristics. Objection: How? Reply: By saying that any defect imagined through ignorance does not affect the supreme Reality which is the substratum of that (imagination). In accordance with this an illustration was cited that a desert is not made muddy by water in a mirage. Even the defect of the possibility of nonexistence of the mundange state, conseent on the nonexistence of individual souls, stands refuted by the explanation that the mundane state and the individual souls are imagined through ignorance. Objection: The defect of mundane existence in the knower of the field consists in his being possessed of ignorance. And sorrowfulness etc. which are its products are matters of direct experience. Reply: No, since whatever is known is an attribute of the field, therefore the knower-the knower of the field-cannot reasonably be tainted by the defects arising from it. Whatsoever blemish-not existing in the knower of the field-you attribute to It is logically an object of experience, and hence it is verily a ality of the field; not the ality of the knower of the field. Nor does the knower of the field become tainted thery, because of knower cannot possibly have any conjunction with an object of knowledge. Should there be a conjunction, then there will be no possibility at all of its (the latter's) becoming a knowable. Oh! Sir, if being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. be alities of the Self, how is it that they are directly perceived? Or how can they be alities of the Knower of the field? If the conclusion be that all that is known consititutes the field, and that the one who knows is verily the knower of the field, then, to say that being ignorant, sorrowful, etc.are the alities of the knower of the field and that they are directly perceived is a contradictory statement having only ignorance as its basis. Here, (the opponent) asks: To whom does ignorance belong? (The answer is that) it belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced! Objection: In whom is it perceived? Reply: Here the answer is: It is pointless to ask, 'In whom is ignorance experienced?' Objection: How? Reply: If ignorance be perceived (by you), then you perceive its possessor as well. Moreover, when that possessor of ignorance is perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom is it perceived?' For, when an owner of cattle is seen, the estion, 'To whom do the cattle belong', does not become meaningful. Objection: Well, is not the illustration dissimilar? Since, the cattle and their owner are directly perceived, their relation also is directly perceived. Hence the estion is meaningless. Ignorance and its possessor are not directly perceived in that manner, in which case the estion would have been meaningless. Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of ignorance with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of ignorance? Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, therefore it should be got rid of. Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of it! Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself. Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also yourself who possess it? Opponent: I know, but not through direct perception. Reply: If you know through inference, then how is the connection (between yourself and ignorance) known? Surely it is not possible for you the knower to have at that time ['When you are knowing your own ignorance.'] the knowledge of the relation (of the Self) with ignorance which is an object of knowledge; ['After having perceived ignorance as an object of your knowledge, how can you who continue to be the knower cognize yourself as the knower of that ignorance? For this would lead to the contradiction of the same person becoming the subject and the object of cognition.'] because the cognizer is then engaged in cognizing ignorance as an object. Besides, there cannot be someone who is a (separate) cognizer of the relation between the knower and ignorance, and a separate cognition of that (relation), for this would lead to infinite regress. If the knower and the relation between the knower and the thing known be cognizable, then a separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him, again, another knower has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer would have to be imagined! Thus, an infinite regress be comes unavoidable. Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc. Objection: May it not be said that the (Self's) defect is surely this, that the field, which is full of defects, is cognized (by It)? Reply: No, because it is the Immutable, which is consciousness, by nature, that is figuratively spoken of as the cognizer. It is just like figuratively attributing the act of heating to fire merely because of its (natural) heat. Just as it has been shown here by the Lord Himself that identification with action, cause and effect are absent in the Self, and that action, cause, etc. are figuratively attributed to the Self owing to their having been superimposed (on It) through ignorance, so has it been shown by Him in various places: 'He who thinks of this One as the killer৷৷.' (2.19), 'While actions are being done in ever way by the gunas of Nature' (3.27), 'The Omnipresent neither accepts anybody's sin৷৷.' (5.15), etc. It has been explained by us, too, in that very way, and in the following contexts also we shall explain accordingly. Objection: Well, in that case, if identification with action, cause and effect be naturally absent in the Self, and it they be superimpositions through ignorance, then it amounts to this that actions are meant for being undertaken only by the ignorant, not by the enlightened. Reply: It is true that is comes to this. This very fact we shall explain under the verse, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body৷৷.' (18.11). And, in the context dealing with the conclusion of the purport of the whole Scripture, we shall explain this elaborately under the verse, '৷৷.in brief indeed, O son of Kunti,৷৷.which is the supreme consummation of Knowledge' (ibid. 50) It is needless here to expatiate further, Hence we conclude. The next verse, '(Hear about)৷৷.what that field is,' etc., summarizing the purport of the chapter dealing with the 'field' taught in the verses begining from 'This body৷৷.'etc., is being presented. For it is proper to introduce briefly the subject-matter that is sought to be explained. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (13.2,3)

    Subsequently, the revered गीताचार्य (gītācārya – song teacher) further explains thus in the same  त्रयोदशाध्याय श्रीमद् भगवद्गीतस्य (trayodaśādhyāya śrīmad bhagavadgītasya – thirteenth chapter of sacred song celestial)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम्। विनश्यत्स्वविनश्यन्तं यः पश्यति स पश्यति।। समं पश्यन्हि सर्वत्र समवस्थितमीश्वरम्। न हिनस्त्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानं ततो याति परां गतिम्।। प्रकृत्यैव च कर्माणि क्रियमाणानि सर्वशः। यः पश्यति तथाऽऽत्मानमकर्तारं स पश्यति।। यदा भूतपृथग्भावमेकस्थमनुपश्यति। तत एव च विस्तारं ब्रह्म सम्पद्यते तदा।।	samaṁ sarvēṣu bhūtēṣu tiṣṭhantaṁ paramēśvaram। vinaśyatsvavinaśyantaṁ yaḥ paśyati sa paśyati।। samaṁ paśyanhi sarvatra samavasthitamīśvaram। na hinastyātmanā''tmānaṁ tatō yāti parāṁ gatim।। prakr̥tyaiva ca karmāṇi kriyamāṇāni sarvaśaḥ। yaḥ paśyati tathā''tmānamakartāraṁ sa paśyati।। yadā bhūtapr̥thagbhāvamēkasthamanupaśyati। tata ēva ca vistāraṁ brahma sampadyatē tadā।।	Since by seeing eally God who is present alike everywhere he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he attains the supreme Goal. Since by seeing equally God who is present alike everywhere he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he attains the supreme Goal. And he who sees actions as being done in various ways by Nature itself, and also the Self as the non-agent,-he sees. When one realizes that the state of diversity of living things is rooted in the One, and that their manifestation is also from That, then one becomes identified with Brahman. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता (śrīmad bhagavadgītā ) (13.28-31)

 

    Next, let us look at what explanation about the above quoted श्लोकाः (ślokāḥ - verses) is provided by भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न स भूयोऽभिजायते इति सम्यग्दर्शनफलम् अविद्यादिसंसारबीजनिवृत्तिद्वारेण जन्माभावः उक्तः। जन्मकारणं च अविद्यानिमित्तकः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगः उक्तः अतः तस्याः अविद्यायाः निवर्तकं सम्यग्दर्शनम् उक्तमपि पुनः शब्दान्तरेण उच्यते -- समं निर्विशेषं तिष्ठन्तं स्थितिं कुर्वन्तम् क्व सर्वेषु समस्तेषु भूतेषु ब्रह्मादिस्थावरान्तेषु प्राणिषु कम् परमेश्वरं देहेन्द्रियमनोबुद्ध्यव्यक्तात्मनः अपेक्ष्य परमेश्वरः? तं सर्वेषु भूतेषु समं तिष्ठन्तम्। तानि विशिनष्टि विनश्यत्सु इति? तं च परमेश्वरम् अविनश्यन्तम् इति? भूतानां परमेश्वरस्य च अत्यन्तवैलक्षण्यप्रदर्शनार्थम्। कथम् सर्वेषां हि भावविकाराणां जनिलक्षणः भावविकारो मूलम् जन्मोत्तरकालभाविनः अन्ये सर्वे भावविकाराः विनाशान्ताः विनाशात् परो न कश्चित् अस्ति भावविकारः? भावाभावात्। सति हि धर्मिणि धर्माः भवन्ति। अतः अन्त्यभावविकाराभावानुवादेन पूर्वभाविनः सर्वे भावविकाराः प्रतिषिद्धाः भवन्ति सह कार्यैः। तस्मात् सर्वभूतैः वैलक्षण्यम् अत्यन्तमेव परमेश्वरस्य सिद्धम्? निर्विशेषत्वम् एकत्वं च। यः एवं यथोक्तं परमेश्वरं पश्यति? सः पश्यति।।ननु सर्वोऽपि लोकः पश्यति? किं विशेषणेन इति। सत्यं पश्यति किं तु विपरीतं पश्यति। अतः विशिनष्टि -- स एव पश्यतीति। यथा तिमिरदृष्टिः अनेकं चन्द्रं पश्यति? तमपेक्ष्य एकचन्द्रदर्शी विशिष्यते -- स एव पश्यतीति तथा इहापि एकम् अविभक्तं यथोक्तं आत्मानं यः पश्यति? सः विभक्तानेकात्मविपरीतदर्शिभ्यः विशिष्यते -- स एव पश्यतीति। इतरे पश्यन्तोऽपि न पश्यन्ति? विपरीतदर्शित्वात् अनेकचन्द्रदर्शिवत् इत्यर्थः।।यथोक्तस्य सम्यग्दर्शनस्य फलवचनेन स्तुतिः कर्तव्या इति श्लोकः आरभ्यते -- --,समं पश्यन् उपलभमानः हि यस्मात् सर्वत्र सर्वभूतेषु समवस्थितं तुल्यतया अवस्थितम् ईश्वरम्,अतीतानन्तरश्लोकोक्तलक्षणमित्यर्थः। समं पश्यन् किम् न हिनस्ति हिंसां न करोति आत्मना स्वेनैव स्वमात्मानम्। ततः तदहिंसनात् याति परां प्रकृष्टां गतिं मोक्षाख्याम्।।ननु नैव कश्चित् प्राणी स्वयं स्वम् आत्मानं हिनस्ति। कथम् उच्यते अप्राप्तम् न हिनस्ति इति यथा न पृथिव्यामग्निश्चेतव्यो नान्तरिक्षे इत्यादि। नैष दोषः? अज्ञानाम् आत्मतिरस्करणोपपत्तेः। सर्वो हि अज्ञः अत्यन्तप्रसिद्धं साक्षात् अपरोक्षात् आत्मानं तिरस्कृत्य अनात्मानम् आत्मत्वेन परिगृह्य? तमपि धर्माधर्मौ कृत्वा उपात्तम् आत्मानं हत्वा अन्यम् आत्मानम् उपादत्ते नवं तं चैवं हत्वा अन्यमेवं तमपि हत्वा अन्यम् इत्येवम् उपात्तमुपात्तम् आत्मानं हन्ति? इति आत्महा सर्वः अज्ञः। यस्तु परमार्थात्मा? असावपि सर्वदा अविद्यया हत इव? विद्यमानफलाभावात्? इति सर्वे आत्महनः एव अविद्वांसः। यस्तु इतरः यथोक्तात्मदर्शी? सः उभयथापि आत्मना आत्मानं न हिनस्ति न हन्ति। ततः याति परां गतिम् यथोक्तं फलं तस्य भवति इत्यर्थः।।सर्वभूतस्थम् ईश्वरं समं पश्यन् न हिनस्ति आत्मना आत्मानम् इति उक्तम्। तत् अनुपपन्नं स्वगुणकर्मवैलक्षण्यभेदभिन्नेषु आत्मसु? इत्येतत् आशङ्क्य आह --, -- प्रकृत्या प्रकृतिः भगवतः माया त्रिगुणात्मिका? मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यात् (श्वे उ 4।10) इति मन्त्रवर्णात्? तया प्रकृत्यैव च न अन्येन महदादिकार्यकरणाकारपरिणतया कर्माणि वाङ्मनःकायारभ्याणि क्रियमाणानि निर्वर्त्यमानानि सर्वशः सर्वप्रकारैः यः पश्यति उपलभते? तथा आत्मानं क्षेत्रज्ञम् अकर्तारं सर्वोपाधिविवर्जितं सः पश्यति? सः परमार्थदर्शी इत्यभिप्रायः निर्गुणस्य अकर्तुः निर्विशेषस्य आकाशस्येव भेदे प्रमाणानुपपत्तिः इत्यर्थः।।पुनरपि तदेव सम्यग्दर्शनं शब्दान्तरेण प्रपञ्चयति --, -- यदा यस्मिन् काले भूतपृथग्भावं भूतानां पृथग्भावं पृथक्त्वम् एकस्मिन् आत्मनि स्थितं एकस्थम् अनुपश्यति शास्त्राचार्योपदेशम्? अनु आत्मानं प्रत्यक्षत्वेन पश्यति आत्मैव इदं सर्वम् (छा उ 7।25।2) इति? तत एव च तस्मादेव च विस्तारं उत्पत्तिं विकासम् आत्मतः प्राण आत्मत आशा आत्मतः स्मर आत्मत आकाश आत्मतस्तेज आत्मत आप आत्मत आविर्भावतिरोभावावात्मतोऽन्नम् (छा उ 7।26।1) इत्येवमादिप्रकारैः विस्तारं यदा पश्यति? ब्रह्म संपद्यते भवति तदा तस्मिन् काले इत्यर्थः।।एकस्य आत्मानः सर्वदेहात्मत्वे तद्दोषसंबन्धे प्राप्ते? इदम् उच्यते --	na sa bhūyō'bhijāyatē iti samyagdarśanaphalam avidyādisaṁsārabījanivr̥ttidvārēṇa janmābhāvaḥ uktaḥ। janmakāraṇaṁ ca avidyānimittakaḥ kṣētrakṣētrajñasaṁyōgaḥ uktaḥ ataḥ tasyāḥ avidyāyāḥ nivartakaṁ samyagdarśanam uktamapi punaḥ śabdāntarēṇa ucyatē -- samaṁ nirviśēṣaṁ tiṣṭhantaṁ sthitiṁ kurvantam kva sarvēṣu samastēṣu bhūtēṣu brahmādisthāvarāntēṣu prāṇiṣu kam paramēśvaraṁ dēhēndriyamanōbuddhyavyaktātmanaḥ apēkṣya paramēśvaraḥ? taṁ sarvēṣu bhūtēṣu samaṁ tiṣṭhantam। tāni viśinaṣṭi vinaśyatsu iti? taṁ ca paramēśvaram avinaśyantam iti? bhūtānāṁ paramēśvarasya ca atyantavailakṣaṇyapradarśanārtham। katham sarvēṣāṁ hi bhāvavikārāṇāṁ janilakṣaṇaḥ bhāvavikārō mūlam janmōttarakālabhāvinaḥ anyē sarvē bhāvavikārāḥ vināśāntāḥ vināśāt parō na kaścit asti bhāvavikāraḥ? bhāvābhāvāt। sati hi dharmiṇi dharmāḥ bhavanti। ataḥ antyabhāvavikārābhāvānuvādēna pūrvabhāvinaḥ sarvē bhāvavikārāḥ pratiṣiddhāḥ bhavanti saha kāryaiḥ। tasmāt sarvabhūtaiḥ vailakṣaṇyam atyantamēva paramēśvarasya siddham? nirviśēṣatvam ēkatvaṁ ca। yaḥ ēvaṁ yathōktaṁ paramēśvaraṁ paśyati? saḥ paśyati।।nanu sarvō'pi lōkaḥ paśyati? kiṁ viśēṣaṇēna iti। satyaṁ paśyati kiṁ tu viparītaṁ paśyati। ataḥ viśinaṣṭi -- sa ēva paśyatīti। yathā timiradr̥ṣṭiḥ anēkaṁ candraṁ paśyati? tamapēkṣya ēkacandradarśī viśiṣyatē -- sa ēva paśyatīti tathā ihāpi ēkam avibhaktaṁ yathōktaṁ ātmānaṁ yaḥ paśyati? saḥ vibhaktānēkātmaviparītadarśibhyaḥ viśiṣyatē -- sa ēva paśyatīti। itarē paśyantō'pi na paśyanti? viparītadarśitvāt anēkacandradarśivat ityarthaḥ।।yathōktasya samyagdarśanasya phalavacanēna stutiḥ kartavyā iti ślōkaḥ ārabhyatē -- --,samaṁ paśyan upalabhamānaḥ hi yasmāt sarvatra sarvabhūtēṣu samavasthitaṁ tulyatayā avasthitam īśvaram,atītānantaraślōkōktalakṣaṇamityarthaḥ। samaṁ paśyan kim na hinasti hiṁsāṁ na karōti ātmanā svēnaiva svamātmānam। tataḥ tadahiṁsanāt yāti parāṁ prakr̥ṣṭāṁ gatiṁ mōkṣākhyām।।nanu naiva kaścit prāṇī svayaṁ svam ātmānaṁ hinasti। katham ucyatē aprāptam na hinasti iti yathā na pr̥thivyāmagniścētavyō nāntarikṣē ityādi। naiṣa dōṣaḥ? ajñānām ātmatiraskaraṇōpapattēḥ। sarvō hi ajñaḥ atyantaprasiddhaṁ sākṣāt aparōkṣāt ātmānaṁ tiraskr̥tya anātmānam ātmatvēna parigr̥hya? tamapi dharmādharmau kr̥tvā upāttam ātmānaṁ hatvā anyam ātmānam upādattē navaṁ taṁ caivaṁ hatvā anyamēvaṁ tamapi hatvā anyam ityēvam upāttamupāttam ātmānaṁ hanti? iti ātmahā sarvaḥ ajñaḥ। yastu paramārthātmā? asāvapi sarvadā avidyayā hata iva? vidyamānaphalābhāvāt? iti sarvē ātmahanaḥ ēva avidvāṁsaḥ। yastu itaraḥ yathōktātmadarśī? saḥ ubhayathāpi ātmanā ātmānaṁ na hinasti na hanti। tataḥ yāti parāṁ gatim yathōktaṁ phalaṁ tasya bhavati ityarthaḥ।।sarvabhūtastham īśvaraṁ samaṁ paśyan na hinasti ātmanā ātmānam iti uktam। tat anupapannaṁ svaguṇakarmavailakṣaṇyabhēdabhinnēṣu ātmasu? ityētat āśaṅkya āha --, -- prakr̥tyā prakr̥tiḥ bhagavataḥ māyā triguṇātmikā? māyāṁ tu prakr̥tiṁ vidyāt (śvē u 4।10) iti mantravarṇāt? tayā prakr̥tyaiva ca na anyēna mahadādikāryakaraṇākārapariṇatayā karmāṇi vāṅmanaḥkāyārabhyāṇi kriyamāṇāni nirvartyamānāni sarvaśaḥ sarvaprakāraiḥ yaḥ paśyati upalabhatē? tathā ātmānaṁ kṣētrajñam akartāraṁ sarvōpādhivivarjitaṁ saḥ paśyati? saḥ paramārthadarśī ityabhiprāyaḥ nirguṇasya akartuḥ nirviśēṣasya ākāśasyēva bhēdē pramāṇānupapattiḥ ityarthaḥ।।punarapi tadēva samyagdarśanaṁ śabdāntarēṇa prapañcayati --, -- yadā yasmin kālē bhūtapr̥thagbhāvaṁ bhūtānāṁ pr̥thagbhāvaṁ pr̥thaktvam ēkasmin ātmani sthitaṁ ēkastham anupaśyati śāstrācāryōpadēśam? anu ātmānaṁ pratyakṣatvēna paśyati ātmaiva idaṁ sarvam (chā u 7।25।2) iti? tata ēva ca tasmādēva ca vistāraṁ utpattiṁ vikāsam ātmataḥ prāṇa ātmata āśā ātmataḥ smara ātmata ākāśa ātmatastēja ātmata āpa ātmata āvirbhāvatirōbhāvāvātmatō'nnam (chā u 7।26।1) ityēvamādiprakāraiḥ vistāraṁ yadā paśyati? brahma saṁpadyatē bhavati tadā tasmin kālē ityarthaḥ।।ēkasya ātmānaḥ sarvadēhātmatvē taddōṣasaṁbandhē prāptē? idam ucyatē	The cause of birth, viz the association of the field and the Knower of the field brought about by ignorance, has also been stated. Hence, although right knowledge, which is the remover of that ignorance, has been spoken of, still it is being stated over again in other words: Sah, he; pasyati, sees; yah, who; pasyati, sees;-whom?-parameswaram, the supreme Lord-the Lord who is supreme as compared with the body, organs, mind, intellect, the Unmanifest and the individual soul; as tisthantam, existing, having His presence; samam, equally, without distinction;-where?-sarvesu, in all; bhutesu, beings, all living things from Brahma to the non-moving;-he who sees Him existing equally in all living things. The Lord specifies them by the word vinasyatsu, among the perishable; and He also specifies Him, the supreme Lord, by the word avinasyantam, the Imperishable. This is meant for showing the absolute difference between the living things and God. How? For, all the modifications [See note 3 on p.38.-Tr.] of an existing thing have as their root that modification of an existing thing described as birth. All other modifications of existing things that follow birth end with destruction. After destruction there is no modification of an existing thing, because the object itself becomes nonexistent. Indeed, qualities can exist so long as the thing qualified exists. Therefore, by the reiteration of the absence of the last modification of an existing thing, all its preceding modifications become negated along with their effects. Hence it is established that the supreme Lord is very greatly different from all beings, and is also Unconditioned [Free from all modifications that things are subject to.] and One. He sees who thus sees the supreme Lord as described. Objection: Is it not that all poeple see? What is the need of specification? Reply: True, they see; but they see contrarily! Hence the Lord specifies, ‘He alone sees’. As in comparison with one who, suffering from the (eye) disease called Timira, sees many moons, the person who sees one moon is distingusihed by saying, ‘He alone sees,’ similarly, here as well, the man who sees the one undivided Self as described above is distinguished from those who contrarily see many and differentiated selves, by saying ‘He alone sees’. Others, though seeing, do not see because they see contrarily like the person who sees many moons. This is the meaning. The obove-described true knowledge has to be praised by stating its result. Hence the verse begins: Hi, since; pasyan, by seeing, by realizing; samam, equally; isvaram, God, i.e., (by realizing Him) as described in the immediately preceding verse; who is samavasthitam, present alike; sarvatra, everywhere, in all beings;-what follows from seeing equally?-he na, does not; hinasti, injure; his own atmanam, Self; atmana, by the Self, by his own Self; tatah, therefore, as a result of that non-injuring; yati, he attains; the param, supreme; gatim, Goal, called Liberation. Objection: Is it not that no creature whatsoever injures himself by himself? Why do you refer to an irrelevant thing by saying, ‘He does not injure…,which is like saying, ‘Fire should neither be lit on the earth nor in the sky,’ etc.? Reply: This defect does not arise, because it is logical with reference to an unenlightened person’s ignoring the Self. For, all unillumined people ignore the very wellknown Self which is manifest and directly perceptible, and regard the non-Self as the Self. By performing righteous and unrighteous acts they destroy even that self which has been accepted, and adopt another new self. And destroying even that, they take up another. Similarly, destroying even that, they adopt another. In this way they destroy the self that had been accepted successively. Thus, all unillumined persons are destroyers of the Self. But that which is the Self in reality, even that remains as though destroyed for ever by ignorance, because of the absence of any benefit from Its presence. So, all unenlightened persons are, verily, destroyers of the Self. On the contrary, the other person who has realized the Self as described does not injure in either way [i.e. either through superimposition or through non-super-imposition.] the Self by his own Self. Therefore he attains the supreme Goal, i.e., the result stated above comes to him. Lest it be doubted that what was said in, ‘seeing equally God who is present in all beings, he does not injure the Self by the Self, is improper with regard to the selves which are diverse according to the differences created by the variety in their own qualities and actions, the Lord says: And yah, he who; pasyati, sees, realizes; karmani, actions, those performed through speech, mind and body; as kriyamanani, being done, being accomplished; sarvasah, in various ways; prakrtya, by Nature-Nature is God’s Maya consisting of the three qualities, as is said in the Upanisadic text, ‘However, know Maya as Nature’ (Sv. 4.10); by that Nature; eva, itself-not by the other [Not by the Pradhana of the Sankhyas, known otherwise as prakrti.] which transforms itself in the form of cause and effects such as Mahat etc.; tatha, and also; atmanam, the Self, the Knower of the field; as akartaram, the non-agent, devoid of all adjuncts; sah, he; pasyati, sees-he is the one who has realized the supreme Reality. This is the idea. What is implied is that there is no valid proof about differences in the Non-agent who is devoid of qualities and is unconditioned like space. The Lord elaborates again in other words that very true knowledge: Yada, when, at the time when; anupasyati, one realizes-having reflected in accordance with the instructions of the scriptures and the teachers, one realizes as a matter of one’s own direct experience that ‘All this is but the Self’ (Ch. 7.25.2); that bhuta-prthak-bhavam, the state of diversity of living things; is ekastham, rooted in the One, existing in the one Self; and their vistaram, manifestation, origination; tatah, eva, is also from That-when he realizes that origination in such diverse ways as, ‘the vital force is from the Self, hope is from the Self, memory [Smara, memory; see Sankaracarya’s Comm. on Ch. 7.13.1.-Tr.] is from the Self, space is from the Self, fire is from the Self, water is from the Self, coming into being and withdrawal are owing to the Self, food is from the Self’ (op. cit. 7.26.1); tada, then, at that time; brahma sampadyate, one becomes identified with Brahman Itself. This is the import. If the same Self be the Self in all the bodies, then there arises the possiblity of Its association with their defects. Hence this is said: -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (13.28-31)

    Particularly, I would like to draw your attention on the अन्तिमश्लोकस्य भाष्यम् (antimaślōkasya bhāṣyam – commentory of the last verse) wherein जगत्गुरु (jagatguru – world preceptor) very categorically states that the one who perceives the multiplicity of beings as abiding in the one Self and realizes that all this is none other than the आत्ममात्रम् (ātmamātram – Self only), immediately becomes the ब्रह्मन् (brahman - divinity) itself. Hence, it is clear that the जगत्गुरु (jagatguru – world preceptor) does not mean that “केवलं अज्ञानिनः एव जगत् पश्यन्ति / अज्ञानाभ्य एव जगत् दृश्यते (kēvalaṁ ajñāninaḥ ēva jagat paśyanti / ajñānābhya ēva jagat dr̥śyatē– only the ignorant see the world / the world appears to the ignorant only)” but on the other hand he categorically explains here that ज्ञानिन् जीवन्मुक्त अपि व्यावहारिकजगति बहुलतां निरन्तरं प्रतीयते (jñānin jīvanmukta api vyāvahārikajagati bahulatāṁ nirantaraṁ pratīyatē – enlightened living liberated soul continues to percieve the multiplicity in the empirical world) however, unlike an अज्ञानिन् बद्धात्मन् (ajñānin baddhātman – ignorant bound-soul), he is very well aware that the perceived multiplicity is not outside but abides within the Self, 

    Moreover, earlier itself, the revered गीताचार्य (gītācārya – song teacher) as part of the षष्ठोऽध्यायः श्रीमद् भगवद्गीतस्य (ṣaṣṭhō'dhyāyaḥ śrīmad bhagavadgītasya – sixth chapter of sacred song celestial) while discussing ध्यानयोग (gītācārya – meditative union) has very categorically declared thus: 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तं विद्याद् दुःखसंयोगवियोगं योगसंज्ञितम्। स निश्चयेन योक्तव्यो योगोऽनिर्विण्णचेतसा।। सङ्कल्पप्रभवान्कामांस्त्यक्त्वा सर्वानशेषतः। मनसैवेन्द्रियग्रामं विनियम्य समन्ततः।। शनैः शनैरुपरमेद् बुद्ध्या धृतिगृहीतया। आत्मसंस्थं मनः कृत्वा न किञ्चिदपि चिन्तयेत्।। यतो यतो निश्चरति मनश्चञ्चलमस्थिरम्। ततस्ततो नियम्यैतदात्मन्येव वशं नयेत्।। प्रशान्तमनसं ह्येनं योगिनं सुखमुत्तमम्। उपैति शान्तरजसं ब्रह्मभूतमकल्मषम्।। युञ्जन्नेवं सदाऽऽत्मानं योगी विगतकल्मषः। सुखेन ब्रह्मसंस्पर्शमत्यन्तं सुखमश्नुते।। सर्वभूतस्थमात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि। ईक्षते योगयुक्तात्मा सर्वत्र समदर्शनः।। यो मां पश्यति सर्वत्र सर्वं च मयि पश्यति। तस्याहं न प्रणश्यामि स च मे न प्रणश्यति।।	taṁ vidyād duḥkhasaṁyōgaviyōgaṁ yōgasaṁjñitam। sa niścayēna yōktavyō yōgō'nirviṇṇacētasā।। saṅkalpaprabhavānkāmāṁstyaktvā sarvānaśēṣataḥ। manasaivēndriyagrāmaṁ viniyamya samantataḥ।। śanaiḥ śanairuparamēd buddhyā dhr̥tigr̥hītayā। ātmasaṁsthaṁ manaḥ kr̥tvā na kiñcidapi cintayēt।। yatō yatō niścarati manaścañcalamasthiram। tatastatō niyamyaitadātmanyēva vaśaṁ nayēt।। praśāntamanasaṁ hyēnaṁ yōginaṁ sukhamuttamam। upaiti śāntarajasaṁ brahmabhūtamakalmaṣam।। yuñjannēvaṁ sadā''tmānaṁ yōgī vigatakalmaṣaḥ। sukhēna brahmasaṁsparśamatyantaṁ sukhamaśnutē।। sarvabhūtasthamātmānaṁ sarvabhūtāni cātmani। īkṣatē yōgayuktātmā sarvatra samadarśanaḥ।। yō māṁ paśyati sarvatra sarvaṁ ca mayi paśyati। tasyāhaṁ na praṇaśyāmi sa ca mē na praṇaśyati।।	One should know that severance of contact with sorrow to be what is called Yoga. That Yoga has to be practised with perservance and with an undepressed heart. By totally eschewing all desires which arise from thoughts, and restraining with the mind itself all the organs from every side; One should gradually withdraw with the intellect endowed with steadiness. Making the mind fixed in the Self, one should not think of anything whatsoever. (The yogi) should bring (this mind) under the subjugation of the Self Itself, by restraining it from all those causes whatever due to which the restless, unsteady mind wanders away. Supreme Bliss comes to this yogi alone whose mind has become perfectly tranil, whose (ality of) rajas has been eliminated, who has become identified with Brahman, and is taintless. By concentrating his mind constantly thus, the taintless yogi easily attains the absolute Bliss of contact with Brahman. One who has his mind Self-absorbed through Yoga, and who has the vision of sameness every-where, see this Self existing in everything, and every-thing in his Self. One who sees Me in everything, and sees all things in Me-I do not out of his vision, and he also is not lost to My vision. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता (śrīmad bhagavadgītā) (6.23-30)

    Next, let us look at what explanation about the above quoted  श्लोकाः (ślokāḥ - verses)  is provided by भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तं विद्यात् विजानीयात् दुःखसंयोगवियोगं दुःखैः संयोगः दुःखसंयोगः तेन वियोगः दुःखसंयोगवियोगः तं दुःखसंयोगवियोगं योग इत्येव संज्ञितं विपरीतलक्षणेन विद्यात् विजानीयादित्यर्थः। योगफलमुपसंहृत्य पुनरन्वारम्भेण योगस्य कर्तव्यता उच्यते निश्चयानिर्वेदयोः योगसाधनत्वविधानार्थम्। स यथोक्तफलो योगः निश्चयेन अध्यवसायेन योक्तव्यः अनिर्विण्णचेतसा न निर्विण्णम् अनिर्विण्णम्। किं तत् चेतः तेन निर्वेदरहितेन चेतसा चित्तेनेत्यर्थः।।किञ्च संकल्पप्रभवान् संकल्पः प्रभवः येषां कामानां ते संकल्पप्रभवाः कामाः तान् त्यक्त्वा परित्यज्य सर्वान् अशेषतः निर्लेपेन। किञ्च मनसैव विवेकयुक्तेन इन्द्रियग्रामम् इन्द्रियसमुदायं विनियम्य नियमनं कृत्वा समन्ततः समन्तात्।। शनैः शनैः न सहसा उपरमेत् उपरतिं कुर्यात्। कया बुद्ध्या। किंविशिष्टया धृतिगृहीतया धृत्या धैर्येण गृहीतया धृतिगृहीतया धैर्येण युक्तया इत्यर्थः। आत्मसंस्थम् आत्मनि संस्थितम् आत्मैव सर्वं न ततोऽन्यत् किञ्चिदस्ति इत्येवमात्मसंस्थं मनः कृत्वा न किञ्चिदपि चिन्तयेत्। एष योगस्य परमो विधिः।।तत्र एवमात्मसंस्थं मनः कर्तुं प्रवृत्तो योगी यतो यतः यस्माद्यस्मात् निमित्तात् शब्दादेः निश्चरति निर्गच्छति स्वभावदोषात् मनः चञ्चलम् अत्यर्थं चलम् अत एव अस्थिरम् ततस्ततः तस्मात्तस्मात् शब्दादेः निमित्तात् नियम्य तत्तन्निमित्तं याथात्म्यनिरूपणेन आभासीकृत्य वैराग्यभावनया च एतत् मनः आत्मन्येव वशं नयेत् आत्मवश्यतामापादयेत्। एवं योगाभ्यासबलात् योगिनः आत्मन्येव प्रशाम्यति मनः।। प्रशान्तमनसं प्रकर्षेण शान्तं मनः यस्य सः प्रशान्तमनाः तं प्रशान्तमनसं हि एनं योगिनं सुखम् उत्तमं निरतिशयम् उपैति उपगच्छति शान्तरजसं प्रक्षीणमोहादिक्लेशरजसमित्यर्थः ब्रह्मभूतं जीवन्मुक्तम् ब्रह्मैव सर्वम् इत्येवं निश्चयवन्तं ब्रह्मभूतम् अकल्मषं धर्माधर्मादिवर्जितम्।। युञ्जन् एवं यथोक्तेन क्रमेण योगी योगान्तरायवर्जितः सदा सर्वदा आत्मानं विगतकल्मषः विगतपापः सुखेन अनायासेन ब्रह्मसंस्पर्शं ब्रह्मणा परेण संस्पर्शो यस्य तत् ब्रह्मसंस्पर्शं सुखम् अत्यन्तम् अन्तमतीत्य वर्तत इत्यत्यन्तम् उत्कृष्टं निरतिशयम् अश्नुते व्याप्नोति।।इदानीं योगस्य यत् फलं ब्रह्मैकत्वदर्शनं सर्वसंसारविच्छेदकारणं तत् प्रदर्श्यते सर्वभूतस्थं सर्वेषु भूतेषु स्थितं स्वम् आत्मानं सर्वभूतानि च आत्मनि ब्रह्मादीनि स्तम्बपर्यन्तानि च सर्वभूतानि आत्मनि एकतां गतानि ईक्षते पश्यति योगयुक्तात्मा समाहितान्तःकरणः सर्वत्र समदर्शनः सर्वेषु ब्रह्मादिस्थावरान्तेषु विषमेषु सर्वभूतेषु समं निर्विशेषं ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविषयं दर्शनं ज्ञानं यस्य स सर्वत्र समदर्शनः।।एतस्य आत्मैकत्वदर्शनस्य फलम् उच्यते यो मां पश्यति वासुदेवं सर्वस्य आत्मानं सर्वत्र सर्वेषु भूतेषु सर्वं च ब्रह्मादिभूतजातं मयि सर्वात्मनि पश्यति तस्य एवं आत्मैकत्वदर्शिनः अहम् ईश्वरो न प्रणश्यामि न परोक्षतां गमिष्यामि। स च मे न प्रणश्यति स च विद्वान् मम वासुदेवस्य न प्रणश्यति न परोक्षो भवति तस्य च मम च एकात्मकत्वात् स्वात्मा हि नाम आत्मनः प्रिय एव भवति यस्माच्च अहमेव सर्वात्मैकत्वदर्शी।।इत्येतत् पूर्वश्लोकार्थं सम्यग्दर्शनमनूद्य तत्फलं मोक्षः अभिधीयते	taṁ vidyāt vijānīyāt duḥkhasaṁyōgaviyōgaṁ duḥkhaiḥ saṁyōgaḥ duḥkhasaṁyōgaḥ tēna viyōgaḥ duḥkhasaṁyōgaviyōgaḥ taṁ duḥkhasaṁyōgaviyōgaṁ yōga ityēva saṁjñitaṁ viparītalakṣaṇēna vidyāt vijānīyādityarthaḥ। yōgaphalamupasaṁhr̥tya punaranvārambhēṇa yōgasya kartavyatā ucyatē niścayānirvēdayōḥ yōgasādhanatvavidhānārtham। sa yathōktaphalō yōgaḥ niścayēna adhyavasāyēna yōktavyaḥ anirviṇṇacētasā na nirviṇṇam anirviṇṇam। kiṁ tat cētaḥ tēna nirvēdarahitēna cētasā cittēnētyarthaḥ।।kiñca saṁkalpaprabhavān saṁkalpaḥ prabhavaḥ yēṣāṁ kāmānāṁ tē saṁkalpaprabhavāḥ kāmāḥ tān tyaktvā parityajya sarvān aśēṣataḥ nirlēpēna। kiñca manasaiva vivēkayuktēna indriyagrāmam indriyasamudāyaṁ viniyamya niyamanaṁ kr̥tvā samantataḥ samantāt।। śanaiḥ śanaiḥ na sahasā uparamēt uparatiṁ kuryāt। kayā buddhyā। kiṁviśiṣṭayā dhr̥tigr̥hītayā dhr̥tyā dhairyēṇa gr̥hītayā dhr̥tigr̥hītayā dhairyēṇa yuktayā ityarthaḥ। ātmasaṁstham ātmani saṁsthitam ātmaiva sarvaṁ na tatō'nyat kiñcidasti ityēvamātmasaṁsthaṁ manaḥ kr̥tvā na kiñcidapi cintayēt। ēṣa yōgasya paramō vidhiḥ।।tatra ēvamātmasaṁsthaṁ manaḥ kartuṁ pravr̥ttō yōgī yatō yataḥ yasmādyasmāt nimittāt śabdādēḥ niścarati nirgacchati svabhāvadōṣāt manaḥ cañcalam atyarthaṁ calam ata ēva asthiram tatastataḥ tasmāttasmāt śabdādēḥ nimittāt niyamya tattannimittaṁ yāthātmyanirūpaṇēna ābhāsīkr̥tya vairāgyabhāvanayā ca ētat manaḥ ātmanyēva vaśaṁ nayēt ātmavaśyatāmāpādayēt। ēvaṁ yōgābhyāsabalāt yōginaḥ ātmanyēva praśāmyati manaḥ।। praśāntamanasaṁ prakarṣēṇa śāntaṁ manaḥ yasya saḥ praśāntamanāḥ taṁ praśāntamanasaṁ hi ēnaṁ yōginaṁ sukham uttamaṁ niratiśayam upaiti upagacchati śāntarajasaṁ prakṣīṇamōhādiklēśarajasamityarthaḥ brahmabhūtaṁ jīvanmuktam brahmaiva sarvam ityēvaṁ niścayavantaṁ brahmabhūtam akalmaṣaṁ dharmādharmādivarjitam।। yuñjan ēvaṁ yathōktēna kramēṇa yōgī yōgāntarāyavarjitaḥ sadā sarvadā ātmānaṁ vigatakalmaṣaḥ vigatapāpaḥ sukhēna anāyāsēna brahmasaṁsparśaṁ brahmaṇā parēṇa saṁsparśō yasya tat brahmasaṁsparśaṁ sukham atyantam antamatītya vartata ityatyantam utkr̥ṣṭaṁ niratiśayam aśnutē vyāpnōti।।idānīṁ yōgasya yat phalaṁ brahmaikatvadarśanaṁ sarvasaṁsāravicchēdakāraṇaṁ tat pradarśyatē sarvabhūtasthaṁ sarvēṣu bhūtēṣu sthitaṁ svam ātmānaṁ sarvabhūtāni ca ātmani brahmādīni stambaparyantāni ca sarvabhūtāni ātmani ēkatāṁ gatāni īkṣatē paśyati yōgayuktātmā samāhitāntaḥkaraṇaḥ sarvatra samadarśanaḥ sarvēṣu brahmādisthāvarāntēṣu viṣamēṣu sarvabhūtēṣu samaṁ nirviśēṣaṁ brahmātmaikatvaviṣayaṁ darśanaṁ jñānaṁ yasya sa sarvatra samadarśanaḥ।।ētasya ātmaikatvadarśanasya phalam ucyatē yō māṁ paśyati vāsudēvaṁ sarvasya ātmānaṁ sarvatra sarvēṣu bhūtēṣu sarvaṁ ca brahmādibhūtajātaṁ mayi sarvātmani paśyati tasya ēvaṁ ātmaikatvadarśinaḥ aham īśvarō na praṇaśyāmi na parōkṣatāṁ gamiṣyāmi। sa ca mē na praṇaśyati sa ca vidvān mama vāsudēvasya na praṇaśyati na parōkṣō bhavati tasya ca mama ca ēkātmakatvāt svātmā hi nāma ātmanaḥ priya ēva bhavati yasmācca ahamēva sarvātmaikatvadarśī।।ityētat pūrvaślōkārthaṁ samyagdarśanamanūdya tatphalaṁ mōkṣaḥ abhidhīyatē	vidyat, one should know; tat, that; duhkha-samyoga-viyogam, severance (viyoga) of contact (samyoga) with sorrow (duhkha); to be verily yoga-sanjnitam, what is called Yoga-i.e. oen should know it through a negative definition. After concluding the topic of the result of Yoga, the need for pursuing Yoga is again being spoken of in another way in order to enjoin 'preservance' and 'freedom from depression' as the disciplines for Yoga: Sah, that; yogah, Yoga, which has the results as stated above; yoktavyah, has to be practised; niscayena, with perservance; and anirvinnacetasa, with an undepressed heart. That which is not (a) depressed (nirvinnam) is anirvinnam. What is that? The heart. (One has to practise Yoga) with that heart which is free from depression. This is the meaning. Again, Tyaktva, by eschewing; asesatah, totally, without a trace; sarvan, all; the kamam, desires; sankalpa-prabhavan, which arise from thoughts; and further, viniyamya, restraining; manasa eva, with the mind itself, with the mind endued with discrimination; indriya-gramam, all the organs; samantatah, from every side; uparamet, one should withdraw, abstain; sanaih sanaih, gradually, not suddenly;-with what?-buddhya, with the intellect;- possessed of what distinction?-dhrti-grhitaya, endowed with steadiness, i.e. with fortitude. Krtva, making manah, the mind; atma-samstham, fixed in the Self, with the idea, 'The Self alone is all; there is nothing apart from It'-thus fixing the mind on the Self; na cintayet, one should not think of; kincit api, anything whatsoever. Thisis the highest instruction about Yoga. In the beginning, the yogi who is thus engaged in making the mind established in the Self, etat vasamnayet, should bring this (mind) under the subjugation; atmani eva, of the Self Itself; niyamya, by restraining; etat. it; tatah tatah, from all those causes whatever, viz sound etc.; yatah yatah, due to which, doe to whatever objects like sound etc.; the cancalam, restless, very restless; and therefore asthiram, unsteady; manah, mind; niscarati, wanders away, goes out due to its inherent defects. (It should be restrained) by ascertaining through discrimination those causes to be mere appearances, and with an attitude of detachment. Thus, through the power of practice of Yoga, the mind of the yogi merges in the Self Itself. Uttamam, supreme, unsurpassable; sukham, Blisss; upaiti, comes; hi enam yoginam, to this yogi alone; prasanta-manasam, whose mind has become perfectly tranil; santa-rejasam, whose (ality of) rajas has been eliminated, i.e. whose rajas, viz defects such as delusion etc. ['The five klesas, pain-bearing obstructions, are: ignorance, egoism, attachment, aversion, and clinging to life' (P.Y.Su.2.3).] have been destroyed; brahma-bhutam, who has become identified with Brahman, who is free even while living, who has got the certitude that Bramhman is all; and akalmasam, who is taintless, free from vice etc. Sada yunjan, by constantly concentrating; atmanam, his mind; evam, thus, in the process stated; vigata-kalmasah, the taintles, sinless yogi, free from the obstacles to Yoga; sukhena, easily; asnute, attains; atayantam, absolute-that which exists by transcending limits-, supreme, unsurpassable; sukham, Bliss; of brahma-samsparsam, contact with Brahman-the Bliss that is in touch [In touch with, i.e. identified with, homogeneous with, in essential oneness with.] with the supreme Brahman. Now is being shown that result of Yoga which is the realization of identity with Brahman and which is the cause of the extinction of the whole mundane existence . [Liberation is conceived of in two ways-total cessation of sorrows, and attainment of unsurpassable Bliss.] Yoga-yukta-atma, one who has his mind Self-absorbed through Yoga, whose mind is merged in samadhi; and sarvatra-sama-darsanah, who has the vision of sameness everywhere-who has the vision (darsana) of sameness (sama-tva), the knowledge of identity of the Self and Brahman everywhere (sarvatra) without exception, in all divergent objects beginning from Brahma to immovable things; iksate, sees; atmanam, the Self, his own Self; sarva-bhuta-stham, existing in everything; and sarva-bhutani, everything from Brahma to a clump of grass; unified atmani, in his Self. The fruit of this realization of the unity of the Self is being stated: Yah, one who; pasyati, sees; mam, Me, Vasudeva, who am the Self of all; sarvatra, in all things; ca, and; sees sarvam, all things, all created things, beginning from Brahma; mayi, in Me who am the Self of all;-aham, I who am God; na pranasyami, do not go out; tasya,of his vision-of one who has thus realized the unity of the Self; ca sah, and he also; na pranasyati, is not lost; me, to My vision. That man of realization does not get lost to Me, to Vasudeva, because of the indentity between him and Me, for that which is called one's own Self is surely dear to one, and since it is I alone who am the seer of the unity of the Self in all. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (6.23-30)

    Particularly, please note the declaration by the revered  जगत्गुरु (jagatguru – world preceptor) that “ब्रह्मभूतं जीवन्मुक्तम् ब्रह्मैव सर्वम् इत्येवं निश्चयवन्तं ब्रह्मभूतम् अकल्मषं धर्माधर्मादिवर्जितम् (brahmabhūtaṁ jīvanmuktam brahmaiva sarvam ityēvaṁ niścayavantaṁ brahmabhūtam akalmaṣaṁ dharmādharmādivarjitam - who has become identified with Brahman, who is free even while living, who has got the certitude that Bramhman is all; and who is taintless, free from vice etc)” (6.27).  Here, the भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) not only acknowledges the possibility of the existence of a सदेहमुक्ति / जीवन्मुक्ति (sadehamukti / jīvanmukti – embodied liberation / ante mortem liberation) but also highlights the स्वभावलक्षण जीवन्मुक्तस्य (svabhāvalakṣaṇa jīvanmuktasya – inherent nature of the liberated while living) viz.

• ब्रह्मभूतं (brahmabhūtaṁ - identified with Brahman)
• ब्रह्मैव सर्वम् इत्येवं निश्चयवन्तं ब्रह्मभूतम् (brahmaiva sarvam ityēvaṁ niścayavantaṁ brahmabhūtam –  who has got the certitude that Bramhman is all)
• अकल्मषं धर्माधर्मादिवर्जितम् (akalmaṣaṁ dharmādharmādivarjitam- who is taintless, free from vice etc)

Citation 1.1.2: From  शारीरकमीमांससूत्र / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (# 1.2.12)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  शारीरकमीमांससूत्र / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)   as denoted below:

Citation 2  in the original post of Ramesam Vemuri

परमार्थतस्तु नान्यतरस्यापि सम्भवति , अचेतनत्वात्सत्त्वस्य , अविक्रियत्वाच्च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य । अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितस्वभावत्वाच्च सत्त्वस्य सुतरां न सम्भवति । तथा च श्रुतिः — ' यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना स्वप्नदृष्टहस्त्यादिव्यवहारवदविद्याविषय एव कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं दर्शयति । ' यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना च विवेकिनः कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं निवारयति ॥ “For these states of being an agent and experiencer are fancied on the soul (separate self) and the mind, owing to a non-discrimination between their natures. In reality these are possible in neither of them; for the mind is insentient and the soul is changeless. This is all the more impossible in the mind, it being the creation of ignorance. In support of this here is a Vedic text: “Because when there is difference, as it were, then one sees another” (4.5.15, brihat), where it is shown that dealings based on agentship etc. can be possible only within the range of ignorance in the same sense as it is possible to deal with elephants etc. present in a dream. And by the text, “But when to the Knower of brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? (4.5.15, BU)” are denied for the discriminating man such dealings based on agentship etc.  (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda)”.

In order to holistically analyze the above claim, let us here too, as in the previous case, begin our analysis from the मूलसूत्र (mūlasūtra – original aphorism) relating to the above citation. श्री बादरायण महऋषि (śrī bādarāyaṇa mahaṛṣi) who is its revered सूत्रकार (sūtrakāra - aphorist) declares thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
विशेषणाच्च।।	viśēṣaṇācca।।	And because there is a specification. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र (śārīraka brahmasūtra) (1.2.12)

Now let us look a closer look at the specific portions from the शारीरकमीमांससूत्र / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) that are directly related to the citation in question. The commentarial extract is given here. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
परमार्थतस्तु नान्यतरस्यापि सम्भवति, अचेतनत्वात्सत्त्वस्य, अविक्रियत्वाच्च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य । अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितस्वभावत्वाच्च सत्त्वस्य सुतरां न सम्भवति । तथा च श्रुतिः — ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना स्वप्नदृष्टहस्त्यादिव्यवहारवदविद्याविषय एव कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं दर्शयति । ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना च विवेकिनः कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहाराभवं दर्शयति ॥	paramārthatastu nānyatarasyāpi sambhavati, acētanatvātsattvasya, avikriyatvācca kṣētrajñasya । avidyāpratyupasthāpitasvabhāvatvācca sattvasya sutarāṁ na sambhavati । tathā ca śrutiḥ — ‘yatra vā anyadiva syāttatrānyō'nyatpaśyēt' (br̥. u. 4 । 5 । 15) ityādinā svapnadr̥ṣṭahastyādivyavahāravadavidyāviṣaya ēva kartr̥tvādivyavahāraṁ darśayati । ‘yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūttatkēna kaṁ paśyēt' (br̥. u. 4 । 5 । 15) ityādinā ca vivēkinaḥ kartr̥tvādivyavahārābhavaṁ darśayati ॥	For these states of being an agent and experiencer are fancied on the soul and the mind, owing to a non-discrimination between their natures. In reality these are possible in neither of them; for the mind is insentient and the soul is changeless. This is all the more impossible in the mind, it being a creation of ignorance. In support of this here is a Vedic text: "Because when there is difference, as it were, then one sees another" (Bṛ. IV.v.15), where it is shown that dealings based on agentship etc. can be possible only within the range of ignorance in the same sense as it is possible to deal with elephants etc. present in a dream. And by the text, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (ibid.), are denied for the discriminating man such dealings based on agentship etc. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīraka brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.2.12)

     Here too, it is clear that nowhere in the above commentarial extract, भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) seems to suggest that the “केवलं अज्ञानिनः एव जगत् पश्यन्ति  / अज्ञानाभ्य एव जगत् दृश्यते (kēvalaṁ ajñāninaḥ ēva jagat paśyanti / ajñānābhya ēva jagat dr̥śyatē– only the ignorant see the world / the world appears to the ignorant only)”.  What is explained here by his is only that in the case of जीवन्मुक्तब्रह्मज्ञानिन् (jīvanmuktabrahmajñānin – spiritually enlightened living liberate) who is essentially a  स्तिथप्रज्ञ मुक्तात्मन्   (stithaprajña muktātman – liberated soul with steadfast-wisdom) , who has transcended the viscous clutches of कांयकर्तृत्व (kāṃyakartṛtva – desire driven agenthood)

  And to avoid any potential ambiguity due to partial citation, I would like to quote here the complete  भाष्य  (bhāṣya - commentary)   on the above  श्लोक  (śloka – verse)   wherein the revered  जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद   (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   explains thus (Note: As the commentary is quite long, I have highlighted in bold font the relevant portions, for better reading experience):      

Original	Transliteration	Translation
विशेषणं च विज्ञानात्मपरमात्मनोरेव भवति । ‘आत्मानं रथिनं विद्धि शरीरं रथमेव तु’ (क. उ. १ । ३ । ३) इत्यादिना परेण ग्रन्थेन रथिरथादिरूपककल्पनया विज्ञानात्मानं रथिनं संसारमोक्षयोर्गन्तारं कल्पयति । ‘सोऽध्वनः पारमाप्नोति तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम्’ (क. उ. १ । ३ । ९) इति च परमात्मानं गन्तव्यं कल्पयति । तथा ‘तं दुर्दर्शं गूढमनुप्रविष्टं गुहाहितं गह्वरेष्ठं पुराणम् । अध्यात्मयोगाधिगमेन देवं मत्वा धीरो हर्षशोकौ जहाति’ (क. उ. १ । २ । १२) इति पूर्वस्मिन्नपि ग्रन्थे मन्तृमन्तव्यत्वेनैतावेव विशेषितौ । प्रकरणं चेदं परमात्मनः । ‘ब्रह्मविदो वदन्ति’ इति च वक्तृविशेषोपादानं परमात्मपरिग्रहे घटते । तस्मादिह जीवपरमात्मानावुच्येयाताम् । एष एव न्यायः ‘द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया’ (मु. उ. ३ । १ । १) इत्येवमादिष्वपि । तत्रापि ह्यध्यात्माधिकारान्न प्राकृतौ सुपर्णावुच्येते । ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्ति’ इत्यदनलिङ्गाद्विज्ञानात्मा भवति । ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीति’ (मु. उ. ३ । १ । १) इत्यनशनचेतनत्वाभ्यां परमात्मा । अनन्तरे च मन्त्रे तावेव द्रष्टृद्रष्टव्यभावेन विशिनष्टि — ‘समाने वृक्षे पुरुषो निमग्नोऽनीशया शोचति मुह्यमानः । जुष्टं यदा पश्यत्यन्यमीशमस्य महिमानमिति वीतशोकः’ (मु. उ. ३ । १ । २) इति ॥ अपर आह — ‘द्वा सुपर्णा’ इति नेयमृगस्याधिकरणस्य सिद्धान्तं भजते, पैङ्गिरहस्यब्राह्मणेनान्यथा व्याख्यातत्वात् — ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्तीति सत्त्वमनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीतीत्यनश्नन्नन्योऽभिपश्यति ज्ञस्तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ’ इति । सत्त्वशब्दो जीवः क्षेत्रज्ञशब्दः परमात्मेति यदुच्यते, तन्न; सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञशब्दयोरन्तःकरणशारीरपरतया प्रसिद्धत्वात् । तत्रैव च व्याख्यातत्वात् — ‘तदेतत्सत्त्वं येन स्वप्नं पश्यति, अथ योऽयं शारीर उपद्रष्टा स क्षेत्रज्ञस्तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ’ इति । नाप्यस्याधिकरणस्य पूर्वपक्षं भजते । न ह्यत्र शारीरः क्षेत्रज्ञः कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिना संसारधर्मेणोपेतो विवक्ष्यते । कथं तर्हि ? सर्वसंसारधर्मातीतो ब्रह्मस्वभावश्चैतन्यमात्रस्वरूपः; ‘अनश्नन्नन्योऽभिचाकशीतीत्यनश्नन्नन्योऽभिपश्यति ज्ञः’ इति वचनात् , ‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि’ (भ. गी. १३ । २) इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यश्च । तावता च विद्योपसंहारदर्शनमेवमेवावकल्पते, ‘तावेतौ सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञौ न ह वा एवंविदि किञ्चन रज आध्वंसते’ इत्यादि । कथं पुनरस्मिन्पक्षे ‘तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्तीति सत्त्वम्’ इत्यचेतने सत्त्वे भोक्तृत्ववचनमिति, उच्यते — नेयं श्रुतिरचेतनस्य सत्त्वस्य भोक्तृत्वं वक्ष्यामीति प्रवृत्ता; किं तर्हि ? चेतनस्य क्षेत्रज्ञस्याभोक्तृत्वं ब्रह्मस्वभावतां च वक्ष्यामीति । तदर्थं सुखादिविक्रियावति सत्त्वे भोक्तृत्वमध्यारोपयति । इदं हि कर्तृत्वं भोक्तृत्वं च सत्त्वक्षेत्रज्ञयोरितरेतरस्वभावाविवेककृतं कल्प्यते । परमार्थतस्तु नान्यतरस्यापि सम्भवति, अचेतनत्वात्सत्त्वस्य, अविक्रियत्वाच्च क्षेत्रज्ञस्य । अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितस्वभावत्वाच्च सत्त्वस्य सुतरां न सम्भवति । तथा च श्रुतिः — ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना स्वप्नदृष्टहस्त्यादिव्यवहारवदविद्याविषय एव कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहारं दर्शयति । ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना च विवेकिनः कर्तृत्वादिव्यवहाराभवं दर्शयति ॥	viśēṣaṇaṁ ca vijñānātmaparamātmanōrēva bhavati । ‘ātmānaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi śarīraṁ rathamēva tu' (ka. u. 1 । 3 । 3) ityādinā parēṇa granthēna rathirathādirūpakakalpanayā vijñānātmānaṁ rathinaṁ saṁsāramōkṣayōrgantāraṁ kalpayati । ‘sō'dhvanaḥ pāramāpnōti tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṁ padam' (ka. u. 1 । 3 । 9) iti ca paramātmānaṁ gantavyaṁ kalpayati । tathā ‘taṁ durdarśaṁ gūḍhamanupraviṣṭaṁ guhāhitaṁ gahvarēṣṭhaṁ purāṇam । adhyātmayōgādhigamēna dēvaṁ matvā dhīrō harṣaśōkau jahāti' (ka. u. 1 । 2 । 12) iti pūrvasminnapi granthē mantr̥mantavyatvēnaitāvēva viśēṣitau । prakaraṇaṁ cēdaṁ paramātmanaḥ । ‘brahmavidō vadanti' iti ca vaktr̥viśēṣōpādānaṁ paramātmaparigrahē ghaṭatē । tasmādiha jīvaparamātmānāvucyēyātām । ēṣa ēva nyāyaḥ ‘dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā' (mu. u. 3 । 1 । 1) ityēvamādiṣvapi । tatrāpi hyadhyātmādhikārānna prākr̥tau suparṇāvucyētē । ‘tayōranyaḥ pippalaṁ svādvatti' ityadanaliṅgādvijñānātmā bhavati । ‘anaśnannanyō'bhicākaśīti' (mu. u. 3 । 1 । 1) ityanaśanacētanatvābhyāṁ paramātmā । anantarē ca mantrē tāvēva draṣṭr̥draṣṭavyabhāvēna viśinaṣṭi — ‘samānē vr̥kṣē puruṣō nimagnō'nīśayā śōcati muhyamānaḥ । juṣṭaṁ yadā paśyatyanyamīśamasya mahimānamiti vītaśōkaḥ' (mu. u. 3 । 1 । 2) iti ॥ apara āha — ‘dvā suparṇā' iti nēyamr̥gasyādhikaraṇasya siddhāntaṁ bhajatē, paiṅgirahasyabrāhmaṇēnānyathā vyākhyātatvāt — ‘tayōranyaḥ pippalaṁ svādvattīti sattvamanaśnannanyō'bhicākaśītītyanaśnannanyō'bhipaśyati jñastāvētau sattvakṣētrajñau' iti । sattvaśabdō jīvaḥ kṣētrajñaśabdaḥ paramātmēti yaducyatē, tanna; sattvakṣētrajñaśabdayōrantaḥkaraṇaśārīraparatayā prasiddhatvāt । tatraiva ca vyākhyātatvāt — ‘tadētatsattvaṁ yēna svapnaṁ paśyati, atha yō'yaṁ śārīra upadraṣṭā sa kṣētrajñastāvētau sattvakṣētrajñau' iti । nāpyasyādhikaraṇasya pūrvapakṣaṁ bhajatē । na hyatra śārīraḥ kṣētrajñaḥ kartr̥tvabhōktr̥tvādinā saṁsāradharmēṇōpētō vivakṣyatē । kathaṁ tarhi ? sarvasaṁsāradharmātītō brahmasvabhāvaścaitanyamātrasvarūpaḥ; ‘anaśnannanyō'bhicākaśītītyanaśnannanyō'bhipaśyati jñaḥ' iti vacanāt , ‘tattvamasi' ‘kṣētrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi' (bha. gī. 13 । 2) ityādiśrutismr̥tibhyaśca । tāvatā ca vidyōpasaṁhāradarśanamēvamēvāvakalpatē, ‘tāvētau sattvakṣētrajñau na ha vā ēvaṁvidi kiñcana raja ādhvaṁsatē' ityādi । kathaṁ punarasminpakṣē ‘tayōranyaḥ pippalaṁ svādvattīti sattvam' ityacētanē sattvē bhōktr̥tvavacanamiti, ucyatē — nēyaṁ śrutiracētanasya sattvasya bhōktr̥tvaṁ vakṣyāmīti pravr̥ttā; kiṁ tarhi ? cētanasya kṣētrajñasyābhōktr̥tvaṁ brahmasvabhāvatāṁ ca vakṣyāmīti । tadarthaṁ sukhādivikriyāvati sattvē bhōktr̥tvamadhyārōpayati । idaṁ hi kartr̥tvaṁ bhōktr̥tvaṁ ca sattvakṣētrajñayōritarētarasvabhāvāvivēkakr̥taṁ kalpyatē । paramārthatastu nānyatarasyāpi sambhavati, acētanatvātsattvasya, avikriyatvācca kṣētrajñasya । avidyāpratyupasthāpitasvabhāvatvācca sattvasya sutarāṁ na sambhavati । tathā ca śrutiḥ — ‘yatra vā anyadiva syāttatrānyō'nyatpaśyēt' (br̥. u. 4 । 5 । 15) ityādinā svapnadr̥ṣṭahastyādivyavahāravadavidyāviṣaya ēva kartr̥tvādivyavahāraṁ darśayati । ‘yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūttatkēna kaṁ paśyēt' (br̥. u. 4 । 5 । 15) ityādinā ca vivēkinaḥ kartr̥tvādivyavahārābhavaṁ darśayati ॥	And the specification (made in the Upaniṣad) applies to the soul identified with the intellect and the supreme Self alone. In the subsequent text commencing with, "Know the Self to be the rider of the chariot, but the body to be the chariot" etc. (Ka. I. iii. 3), which calls up the imagery of the chariot and the rider of the chariot, the Self-identified with the intellect is imagined as the rider of the chariot who has to reach either the worldly state or liberation. And the supreme Self is imagined as the goal to be reached in, "He attains the end of the road, and that is the supreme state of Viṣṇu" (Ka. I. iii. 9). In the preceding text also these two are specified as the thinker and the object of thought in the verse, "The intelligent man gives up happiness and sorrow by developing concentration of mind on the Self and thereby meditating on the old Deity who is inscrutable, lodged inaccessibly in Māyā, located in the intellect, and seated in the midst of misery" (Ka. I. ii. 12). Besides, this is the topic of the supreme Self. And the expression, "The knowers of Brahman say" (Ka. I. iii. 1), which posits a special class of speakers, becomes justifiable if the supreme Self is accepted. Therefore, it is to be admitted that the individual Self and the supreme Self are spoken of here. This line of approach has to be adopted with regard to "Two birds, ever associated and having similar names (cling to the same tree)" (Mu. III. i. 1, Śv. IV. 6), and such other texts. There also the ordinary birds are not spoken of, since the topic centres round the soul. In the text, "Of these two, the one eats the fruits of divergent tastes" (ibid.), the individual Self is to be understood on the strength of the indicatory marks of eating. And in, "The other looks on without eating" (ibid.), the supreme Self is to be understood on the strength of noneating and consciousness. In the succeeding mantra also these two are specified as the seer and object seen: "On the same tree, the individual soul remains - drowned (i.e. stuck), as it were; and so it moans, being worried by its impotence. When it sees thus the other, the adored Lord, and His glory, then it becomes liberated from sorrow" (Mu. III. i.2). Others say: The mantra "Two birds" etc. (Mu. III. i. 1) does not agree with the conclusion arrived at under the present topic. For in the Paiṅgi-rahasya-brāhmaṇa it is explained thus -"The expression, 'Of these two, the one eats the fruits of divergent tastes', refers to the sattva, and 'the other looks on without eating' means the jna (lit. knower) who witnesses without eating. So the sattva and kṣetrajña (lit. knower of the field or body) are meant." It may be argued that the word sattva means the individual soul and kṣetrajña means the supreme Self; but that is wrong, because the words sattva and kṣetrajña are well known as meaning the internal organ (mind) and the embodied soul, and because the explanation is given in that very text thus: "That thing is sattva by which one sees dreams, and that which is the embodied witness is the kṣetrajña; these two are the sattva and kṣetrajña." Vedāntin: And yet this cannot be said to be opposed to the present topic, for the embodied Self, called the kṣetrajña, is not presented here (in the Paiṅgi-brāhmaṇa) as endowed with such worldly qualities as agentship and enjoyership. How is it presented then? It is presented as free from all worldly qualities and identical in nature with Brahman Itself-with pure Consciousness-as stated in," 'The other looks on without eating' means, 'the knower who witnesses without eating'." And this is supported by such Vedic and Smṛti texts as, "That thou art" (Ch. VI. viii. 7), "Me do thou also know to be the kṣetrajña" (GYta, XIII. 2). The conclusion made thus with that much (i.e. the explanation, of the mantra) only, in the words, "The two are the sattva and kṣetrajña. Ignorance has no effect on a man of such knowledge" etc., becomes justifiable only on this assumption (that the individual soul is spoken of as Brahman). Opponent: From such a point of view, how can enjoyership be ascribed to the insentient mind by saying, "'One of them eats the fruits of divergent tastes' means the sattva (i.e. the internal organ)"? The answer is: This Vedic text does not start with the idea, "I shall speak of the enjoyership of the insentient." What is the idea then? The idea is: "I shall show that the sentient individual is not the experiencer, but it is Brahman by nature." It is for this purpose that enjoyership is attributed to the mind which is subject to worldly moods like happiness and sorrow etc. For these states of being an agent and experiencer are fancied on the soul and the mind, owing to a non-discrimination between their natures. In reality these are possible in neither of them; for the mind is insentient and the soul is changeless. This is all the more impossible in the mind, it being a creation of ignorance. In support of this here is a Vedic text: "Because when there is difference, as it were, then one sees another" (Bṛ. IV.v.15), where it is shown that dealings based on agentship etc. can be possible only within the range of ignorance in the same sense as it is possible to deal with elephants etc. present in a dream. And by the text, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (ibid.), are denied for the discriminating man such dealings based on agentship etc. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīraka brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.2.12)

    Next let us look at the cross reference to the श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – revelational declaration) from बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (#4.5.15) as cited by the भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) as part of his above quoted भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary). The same has been highlighted by the author of the original post, in order to prove his point. 

Cross reference to Citation 1.2  in the original post of Ramesam Vemuri

' यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) “Because when there is difference, as it were, then one sees another” (4.5.15, brihat) ' यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) ॥ , “But when to the Knower of brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what? (4.5.15, BU)”    (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda)”.

    Again, for better understanding let us look at the complete version of the मूलश्रुतिवाक्य (mūlaśrutivākya – original revelatory verdict) which occurs part of the याज्ञवल्क्यकाण्डबृहदारण्यकोपनिषदस्य (yājñavalkyakāṇḍabṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadasya – yajnavalkya section of brihadaranyaka upanishad)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति, तदितर इतरंजिघ्रति, तदितर इतरं रसयते, तदितर इतरमभिवदति, तदितर इतरं शृणोति, तदितर इतरं मनुते, तदितर इतरं स्पृशति, तदितर इतरं विजानाति; यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्, तत्केन कं पश्येत्, तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्, तत्केन कं रसयेत्, तत्केन कमभिवदेत्, तत्केन कं शृणुयात्, तत्केन कं मन्वीत तत्केन कं स्पृशेत्, तत्केन कं विजानीयात्? येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयात्? स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा, अगृह्यो न हि गृह्यते, अशीर्यो न हि शीर्यते, असङ्गो न हि सज्यते, असितो न व्यथते, न रिष्यति; विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्, इत्युक्तानुशासनासि मैत्रेयि, एतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति होक्त्वा याज्ञवल्क्यो विजहार ॥	yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraṁ paśyati, taditara itaraṁjighrati, taditara itaraṁ rasayatē, taditara itaramabhivadati, taditara itaraṁ śr̥ṇōti, taditara itaraṁ manutē, taditara itaraṁ spr̥śati, taditara itaraṁ vijānāti; yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūt, tatkēna kaṁ paśyēt, tatkēna kaṁ jighrēt, tatkēna kaṁ rasayēt, tatkēna kamabhivadēt, tatkēna kaṁ śr̥ṇuyāt, tatkēna kaṁ manvīta tatkēna kaṁ spr̥śēt, tatkēna kaṁ vijānīyāt? yēnēdaṁ sarvaṁ vijānāti taṁ kēna vijānīyāt? sa ēṣa nēti nētyātmā, agr̥hyō na hi gr̥hyatē, aśīryō na hi śīryatē, asaṅgō na hi sajyatē, asitō na vyathatē, na riṣyati; vijñātāramarē kēna vijānīyāt, ityuktānuśāsanāsi maitrēyi, ētāvadarē khalvamr̥tatvamiti hōktvā yājñavalkyō vijahāra ॥	Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something, one smells something, one tastes something, one speaks something, one hears something, one thinks something, one touches something, one knows something. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one touch and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known? This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered—it never feels pain, and never suffers injury. Through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the Knower? So you have got the instruction, Maitreyī. This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear. Saying this Yājña-valkya left. -translation by Swami Madhvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (4.5.15)

     Here too, it is clear that nowhere in the above मूलश्रुतिवाक्य (mūlaśrutivākya – original revelatory verdict) it is stated that the “केवलं अज्ञानिनः एव जगत् पश्यन्ति  / अज्ञानाभ्य एव जगत् दृश्यते (kēvalaṁ ajñāninaḥ ēva jagat paśyanti / ajñānābhya ēva jagat dr̥śyatē– only the ignorant see the world / the world appears to the ignorant only)”.  As explained above what is explained here is only that in the case of जीवन्मुक्तब्रह्मज्ञानिन् (jīvanmuktabrahmajñānin – spiritually enlightened living liberate) who is essentially a स्तिथप्रज्ञ मुक्तात्मन्   (stithaprajña muktātman – liberated soul with steadfast-wisdom) , who has transcended the viscous clutches of कांयकर्तृत्व (kāṃyakartṛtva – desire driven agenthood). 

    Now let us try to understand what जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) as part of his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above मूलश्रुतिवाक्य (mūlaśrutivākya – original revelatory verdict) has got to explain here

Original	Transliteration	Translation
चतुर्ष्वपि प्रपाठकेष्वेक आत्मा तुल्यो निर्धारितः परं ब्रह्म / उपायविशेषस्तु तस्याधिगमे ऽन्यश्चान्यश्च / उपेयस्तु स एवाऽत्मा यश्चतुर्थे ऽथात आदेशो नेति नेतीति निर्दिष्टः / स एव पञ्चमे प्राणपणोपन्यासेन शाकल्ययाज्ञवल्क्यसंवादे निर्धारितः / पुनः पञ्चमसमाप्तौ / पुनर्जनकयाज्ञवल्क्यसंवादे / पुनरिहोपनिषत्समाप्तौ / चतुर्णामपि प्रपाठकानामेतदात्मनिष्ठता नान्यो ऽन्तराले कश्चिदपि विवक्षितेर्ऽथ इत्येतत्प्रदर्शनायान्त उपसंहारः स एष नेति नेत्यादिः / यस्मात्प्रकारशतेनापि निरूप्यमाणे तत्तवे नेति नेत्यात्मैव निष्ठा नान्योपलभ्यते तर्केण वाऽगमेन वा तस्मादेतदेवामृतत्वसाधनं यदेतन्नेति नेत्यात्मपरिज्ञानं सर्वसंन्यासश्चेत्येतमर्थमुपसंजिहीर्षन्नाहएतावदेतावन्मात्रं यदेतन्नेति नेत्यद्वैतात्मदर्शनमिदं चान्यसहकारिकारणनिरपेक्षमेवारे मैत्रेय्यमृतत्वसाधनम् / यत्पृष्टत्यसि यदेव भगवान्वेद तदेव मे ब्रूह्यमृतत्वसाधनमिति तदेतावदेवेतु विज्ञेयं त्वयेति हैवं किलामृतत्वसाधनमात्मज्ञानं प्रियायै भार्याया उक्त्वा संन्यासपर्यवसाना / एतावानुपदेश एतद्वेदानुशासनमेषा परमनिष्ठैष पुरुषार्थकर्तव्यतान्त इति / इदानीं विचार्यते शास्त्रार्थविवेकप्रतिपत्तये / यत आकुलानि हि वाक्यानि दृश्यन्ते"यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात्" "यावज्जीवं दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां यजेत" "कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः" "एतद्वै जरामर्यं सर्वं यदग्निहोत्रम्"इत्यादीन्यैकाश्रम्याज्ञापकान्यानि चाऽश्रमान्तरप्रतिपादकानि वाक्यानि"विदित्वा व्युत्थाय प्रव्रजन्ति" "ब्रह्मचर्यं समाप्य गृही भवेद्ग्रहाद्वनी भूत्वा प्रव्रजेत्" "यदि वेतरथा ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेद्गृहाद्वा वनाद्वा"इति / "न कर्मणा न प्रजया धनेन त्यागेनैकेमृतत्वमानशुः"इत्यादीनि / तथा स्मृतयश्च"ब्रह्मचर्यवान्प्रव्रजति" "अविशीर्णब्रह्मचर्यो यमिच्छत्तमावसेति"तस्याऽश्रममविकल्पमेकेब्रुवते"तथा"वैदाननधीत्य ब्रह्मचर्येण पुत्रपौत्रानिच्छेत्पावनार्थं पितृणाम् / अग्नीनाधाय विधिवच्चेष्टयज्ञो वनं प्रविश्याथ मुनिर्बुभूषेत्" // "प्राजापत्यां निरुप्येष्टिं सर्ववेसदक्षिणाम् / आत्मन्यग्नीन्समारोप्य ब्राह्मणः प्रव्रजेद्गृहात्" // इत्याद्याः / एवं व्युत्थानविकल्पक्रमयतेष्टाश्रमप्रतिपत्तिप्रतापादकानि हि श्रुतिस्मृतिवाक्यानि शतश उपलंभ्यन्त इतरेतरविरुद्धानि / आचारश्च तद्विदाम् / विप्रतिपत्तिश्च शास्त्रार्थप्रतपत्तॄणां बहुविदामपि / अतो न शक्यते शास्त्रार्थो मन्दबुद्धिभिर्विवेकेन प्रतिपत्तुम् / परिनिष्ठतशास्त्रन्यायबुद्धिभिरेव ह्योषां वाक्यानां विषयविभागः शक्यते ऽवधारयितुम् / तस्मादेषां विषयविभागज्ञापनाय यथाबुद्धिसामर्थंय विचारयिष्यामः / यावज्जीवश्रुत्यादिवाक्यानामन्यार्थासंभवात्क्रियावसान अव वेदार्थ / तं यज्ञपात्रैर्दहन्तीत्यन्त्यकर्मश्रवणाज्जरामर्यश्रवणाच्च लिङ्गाच्च भस्मान्तं शरीरमिति / न हि पारिव्राज्यपक्षे भस्मान्तता शरीरस्य स्यात् / स्मृतिश्च"निषेकादिश्मशानान्तो मन्त्रैर्यस्योदितो विधिः / तस्या शास्त्रे ऽधिकारो ऽस्मिञ्ज्ञेयो नान्यस्य कस्यचित्"इति / समन्त्रकं हि यत्कर्म वेदेनेह विधीयते तस्य श्मशानान्ततां दर्शयति स्मृतिः / अधिकाराभावप्रदर्शनाच्चात्यन्तमेव श्रुत्यधिकाराभावो ऽकर्मिणो गम्यते / अग्न्युद्वासनापवादाच्च ऽवीरहा वा एष देवानां यो ऽग्निमुद्वासयतेऽ इति / ननु व्युत्थानादिविझधानाद्वैकल्पिकं क्रियावसानत्वं वेदार्थस्य / न / अन्यार्थत्वाद्व्युत्थानादिश्रुतीनाम् / ऽयावज्जीवमन्निहोत्रं जुहोतिऽ"याज्जीवं दर्शपूर्णमासाभ्यां यजेत"इत्येवमादीनां श्रुतीनां जीवनमात्रनिमित्तत्वाद्यदा न शक्यते ऽन्यार्थता कल्पयितुं तदा व्युत्थानादिवाक्यानां कर्मानधिकृतविषयत्वसंभवात् / "कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीवषेच्छतं समाः"इति च मन्त्रवर्णाज्जरया वा ह्येवास्मान्मुच्यते मृत्युना वेति च जरामृत्युभ्यामन्यत्र कर्मवियोगाच्छिद्रासंभवात्कर्मिणां श्मशानान्तत्वं न वैकल्पिकम् / काणकुब्जादयो ऽपि कर्मण्यनधिकृता अनुग्राह्या एव श्रुत्येति व्युत्थानाद्याश्रमान्तरविधानं नानुपपन्नम् / पारिव्राज्याक्रमविधानस्यानवकाशत्वमिति चेत् / न / विश्वजित्सर्वमेधयोर्यावज्जीवविध्यपवादत्वात् / यावज्जीवाग्निहोत्रादिविधेर्विश्वजित्सर्वमेधयोरेवापवादस्तत्र च क्रमप्रतिपत्तिसंभवो"ब्रह्मचर्यं समाप्य गृही भवेद्गृहाद्वनी भुत्वा प्रव्रजेदि"ति विरोधानुपपत्तेः / न ह्येवंविषयत्वे पारिव्राज्यकमविधानवाक्यस्य कश्चिद्विरोधः क्रमप्रतिपत्तेः / अन्यविषयपरिकल्पनायां कश्चिद्बाधः / नाऽत्मज्ञानस्यामृतत्वहेतुत्वाभ्युपगमात् / यत्तावदात्मेत्येवोपासीतेत्यारभ्य स एष नेति नेत्येतदन्तेन ग्रन्थेन यदुपसंहृतमात्मज्ञानं तदमृतत्वसाधनमित्यभ्युपगतं भवता / तत्रैतावदेवामृतत्वसाधनमन्यनिरपेक्षमित्येतन्न मृष्यते / तत्र भवन्तं पृच्छामि किमर्थमात्मज्ञानं मर्षयति भवानिति / शृणु तत्र कारणं यथास्वर्गकामस्य स्वर्गप्राप्त्युपायमजानतो ऽग्निहोत्रादि स्वर्गसाधनमभ्युपगम्यते तथेहाप्यात्मज्ञानम् / यथा ज्ञाप्यते तताभूतमेवामृतत्वसाधनमात्मज्ञानमभ्युपगन्तुं युक्तम् तुल्यप्रामाण्यादुभयत्र / यद्येवं किं स्यात् / सर्वकर्महेतूपमर्दकत्वादात्मज्ञानस्य विद्योद्भवे कर्मनिवृत्तिः स्यात् / दाराग्निसंबद्धानां तावदग्निहोत्रादिकर्मणां भेदबुद्धिविषयसंप्रदानकारकसाध्यत्वम् / अन्यबुद्धिपरच्छेद्यां ह्यग्न्यादिदेवतां संप्रदानकारकभूतामन्त्रेण न हि तत्कर्म निर्वर्त्यते / यया हि संप्रदानकारकबुद्ध्या संप्रदानकारकं कर्मसाधनत्वेनोपदिश्यते सेह विद्यया निवर्त्यते"अन्यो ऽसावन्यो ऽहमस्मीति न स वेद" "देवास्तं परादुर्यो ऽन्यत्राऽत्मनो देवान्वेद" "मृत्यो स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति" "एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यं सर्वमात्मानं पश्यति"इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः / न च देशकालनिमित्त द्यपेक्षत्वं व्यवस्थितात्मवस्तुविषयत्वादात्मज्ञानस्य / क्रियायास्तु पुरुषतन्त्रत्वात्स्याद्देशकालनिमित्ताद्येपेक्षत्वम् / ज्ञानं तु वस्तुतन्त्रत्वान्न देशकालनिमित्ताद्यपेक्षते / यथाग्निरुष्ण आकाशो ऽमूर्त इति तथाऽत्मविज्ञानमपु / नन्वेवं सति प्रामाणभूतस्य कर्विधेर्निरोधः स्यात् / न च तुल्यप्रमाणयोरितरेतरनिरोधो युक्तः / न / स्वाभाविकभेदबुद्धिमात्रनिरोधकत्वात् / न हि विध्यन्तरनिरोधकमात्मज्ञानम् स्वाभाविकभेदबुद्धिमात्रं निरुणद्धि / तथापि हेत्वपहारात्कर्मानुपपत्तेर्विधैनिरोध एव स्यादिति चेत् / न / कामप्रतिषेधात्काम्यप्रवृत्तिनिरोधवददोषात् / यथा स्वर्गकामो यजेतेति स्वर्गसाधने यागे प्रवृत्तस्य कामप्रतिषेविधेः कामे विहते काम्ययागानुष्ठानप्रवृत्तिर्निरुध्यते / न चैतावता काम्यविधिर्निरुद्धो भवति / कामप्रतिषेधविधिना काम्यविधेरनर्कत्वज्ञानात्प्रवृत्यनुपपत्तिरिति चेत् / अननुष्ठेयत्वे ऽनुष्ठातुरभावादनुष्ठानविध्यानर्थक्यादप्रामाण्यमेव कर्मविधीनामिति चेत् / न / प्रागात्मज्ञानात्प्रवृत्युपपत्तेः स्वाभाविकस्य क्रियाकारकफलभेदविज्ञानस्य प्रागात्मज्ञानात्कर्महेतुत्वमुपपद्यत एव / यथा कामविषये दोषविज्ञानोत्पत्तेः प्राक्काम्यकर्मप्रवृत्तिहेतुत्वं स्यादेव स्वर्गादीच्छायाः स्वाभाविक्यास्तद्वात् / तथा सत्यनर्थार्थो वेद इति चेत् / न / अर्थानर्थयोरभिप्राततन्त्रत्वात् / मोक्षमेकं वर्जयित्वान्यस्याविद्याविषयत्वात / पुरुषाभिप्रायतन्त्रौ ह्यार्थानर्थौ / मरणादिकाम्येष्टदर्शनात् / तस्माद्यावदात्मज्ञानविधेराभिमुख्यं तावदेव कर्मविधय / तस्मान्नाऽत्मज्ञानसहभावित्वं कर्मणामित्यतः सिद्धमात्मज्ञानमेवामृतत्वसाधनमेतावदरे खल्वमृतत्वमिति / कर्मनिरपेक्षत्वाज्ज्ञानस्य / अतो विदुषस्तावत्पारिव्राज्यं सिद्धं संप्रदानादिकर्मकारकजात्यादिशून्याविक्रियब्रह्मात्मदृढप्रतिपत्तिमात्रेण वचनमन्तरेणाप्युक्तन्यायतः / तथाच व्याख्यातमेतत्"येषां नो ऽयमात्मायं लोक"इति होतुवचनेन / पूर्वे विद्वासः प्रजामकामयमाना व्युत्तिष्ठन्तीति पारिव्राज्यं विदुषामात्मलोकावबोधादेव / तथाच विविदिषोरपु सिद्धं पारिव्राज्यम् / "एतमेवाऽत्मानं लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति"इति वचनात् / कर्मणां चाविद्वद्विषयत्वमवोचाम / अविद्याविषये चोत्पत्याप्तिविकारसंस्कार्थानि कर्माणीत्यतः आत्मसंस्कारद्वैरेणाऽत्मज्ञानसाधनत्वमपि कर्मणामवोचाम यज्ञादिभिर्विविदषन्तीति / अथैत सत्यविद्विषयाणामाश्रमकर्मणां बलाबलविचारणायामात्मज्ञानोत्पादनं प्रति यमप्रधानानाममानित्वादीनां मानसानां च ध्यानज्ञानवैराग्यादीनां सन्निपत्योपकारत्वम् / हिंसारागद्वेषादिबाहुल्याद्बहुक्लिष्टकर्मविमिश्रिता इतर इत्यतः पारिव्राज्यं मुमुक्षूणां प्रशंसन्ति"त्याग एव हि सर्वेषामुक्तानामपि कर्मणाम् / वैराग्यं पुनरेतस्य मोक्षस्य परमो ऽवधिः" // "किं ते धनेन किमु बन्धुभिस्ते किं ते दारैर्ब्राह्मण यो मरिष्यसि / आत्मानमन्विच्छ गुहा प्रविष्टं पितामहास्ते क्व गताः पिता च // "एवं साख्ययोगशास्त्रेषु च संन्यासो ज्ञानं प्रति प्रत्यासन्न उच्यते / कामप्रवृत्त्यभावाच्च / कामप्रवृत्तेर्हि ज्ञानप्रतिकूलता सर्वशास्त्रेषु प्रसिद्धा / तस्माद्विरक्तस्य मुमुक्षोर्विनापि ज्ञानेन ब्रह्मचर्यादेव प्रव्रजेदित्याद्यूपपन्नम् / ननु सावकाशत्वादनधिकृतविषयमेतदित्युक्तं यावज्जीवश्रुत्युपरोधात् / नैष दोषः / नितरां सावकाशत्वाद्यावज्जीवश्रुतीनाम् / अवद्वित्कामिकर्तव्यता ह्यवोचाम सर्वकर्मणाम् / न तु निरपेक्षमेव जीवननिमित्तमेव कर्तव्यं कर्म / प्रायेणहि पुरुषाः कामबहुलाः / कामश्चानेकविषयो ऽनेककर्मसाधनसाध्यश्च / अनेकफलसाधनानि च वैदिकानि कर्माणि दाराग्निसंबन्धपुरुषकर्तव्यानु पुनः पुनश्चानुष्ठीयमानानु बहुफलानु कृष्यादिवद्वर्षशतसमाप्तीनि च गार्हस्थ्ये वारण्ये वातस्तदपेक्षया यावज्जीवश्रुतयः / ऽकुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणिऽ इति च मन्त्रवर्णः / तस्मिंश्च पक्षे विश्वजित्सर्वमेधयोः कर्मपरित्यागः / यस्मिंश्च पक्षे यावज्जीवानुष्ठानं तदा श्मशानान्तत्वं भस्मान्तता च शरीरस्य / इतरवर्णापेक्षया वा यावज्जीवश्रुतिः / न हि क्षत्त्रियवैश्ययो पारिव्राज्यप्रतिपत्तिरस्ति / तथा ऽमन्त्रैर्यस्योदितो विधिःऽ / ऽऐकाश्रम्यं त्वाचार्याऽ इत्येवमादीनां क्षत्रियवैश्यापेक्षत्वम् / तस्मात्पुरुशसामर्थयज्ञानवैराग्यकामाद्यपेक्षया व्युत्थानविकल्पक्रमपारिव्राज्यप्रिपत्तप्रकारा न विरुध्यन्ते / अनधिकृतानां च पृथग्विधानात्पारिव्राज्यस् ऽस्नातको वास्नातको वोत्सन्नाग्निरनग्निको वेऽत्यादिना / तस्मात्सिद्धाश्रमान्तराण्यधिकृतानामेव //	caturṣvapi prapāṭhakeṣveka ātmā tulyo nirdhāritaḥ paraṃ brahma / upāyaviśeṣastu tasyādhigame 'nyaścānyaśca / upeyastu sa evā'tmā yaścaturthe 'thāta ādeśo neti netīti nirdiṣṭaḥ / sa eva pañcame prāṇapaṇopanyāsena śākalyayājñavalkyasaṃvāde nirdhāritaḥ / punaḥ pañcamasamāptau / punarjanakayājñavalkyasaṃvāde / punarihopaniṣatsamāptau / caturṇāmapi prapāṭhakānāmetadātmaniṣṭhatā nānyo 'ntarāle kaścidapi vivakṣiter'tha ityetatpradarśanāyānta upasaṃhāraḥ sa eṣa neti netyādiḥ / yasmātprakāraśatenāpi nirūpyamāṇe tattave neti netyātmaiva niṣṭhā nānyopalabhyate tarkeṇa vā'gamena vā tasmādetadevāmṛtatvasādhanaṃ yadetanneti netyātmaparijñānaṃ sarvasaṃnyāsaścetyetamarthamupasaṃjihīrṣannāha-etāvadetāvanmātraṃ yadetanneti netyadvaitātmadarśanamidaṃ cānyasahakārikāraṇanirapekṣamevāre maitreyyamṛtatvasādhanam / yatpṛṣṭatyasi yadeva bhagavānveda tadeva me brūhyamṛtatvasādhanamiti tadetāvadevetu vijñeyaṃ tvayeti haivaṃ kilāmṛtatvasādhanamātmajñānaṃ priyāyai bhāryāyā uktvā saṃnyāsaparyavasānā / etāvānupadeśa etadvedānuśāsanameṣā paramaniṣṭhaiṣa puruṣārthakartavyatānta iti / idānīṃ vicāryate śāstrārthavivekapratipattaye / yata ākulāni hi vākyāni dṛśyante"yāvajjīvamagnihotraṃ juhuyāt" "yāvajjīvaṃ darśapūrṇamāsābhyāṃ yajeta" "kurvanneveha karmāṇi jijīviṣecchataṃ samāḥ" "etadvai jarāmaryaṃ sarvaṃ yadagnihotram"ityādīnyaikāśramyājñāpakānyāni cā'śramāntarapratipādakāni vākyāni"viditvā vyutthāya pravrajanti" "brahmacaryaṃ samāpya gṛhī bhavedgrahādvanī bhūtvā pravrajet" "yadi vetarathā brahmacaryādeva pravrajedgṛhādvā vanādvā"iti / "na karmaṇā na prajayā dhanena tyāgenaikemṛtatvamānaśuḥ"ityādīni / tathā smṛtayaśca-"brahmacaryavānpravrajati" "aviśīrṇabrahmacaryo yamicchattamāvaseti"tasyā'śramamavikalpamekebruvate"tathā-"vaidānanadhītya brahmacaryeṇa putrapautrānicchetpāvanārthaṃ pitṛṇām / agnīnādhāya vidhivacceṣṭayajño vanaṃ praviśyātha munirbubhūṣet" // "prājāpatyāṃ nirupyeṣṭiṃ sarvavesadakṣiṇām / ātmanyagnīnsamāropya brāhmaṇaḥ pravrajedgṛhāt" // ityādyāḥ / evaṃ vyutthānavikalpakramayateṣṭāśramapratipattipratāpādakāni hi śrutismṛtivākyāni śataśa upalaṃbhyanta itaretaraviruddhāni / ācāraśca tadvidām / vipratipattiśca śāstrārthapratapattṝṇāṃ bahuvidāmapi / ato na śakyate śāstrārtho mandabuddhibhirvivekena pratipattum / pariniṣṭhataśāstranyāyabuddhibhireva hyoṣāṃ vākyānāṃ viṣayavibhāgaḥ śakyate 'vadhārayitum / tasmādeṣāṃ viṣayavibhāgajñāpanāya yathābuddhisāmarthaṃya vicārayiṣyāmaḥ / yāvajjīvaśrutyādivākyānāmanyārthāsaṃbhavātkriyāvasāna ava vedārtha / taṃ yajñapātrairdahantītyantyakarmaśravaṇājjarāmaryaśravaṇācca liṅgācca bhasmāntaṃ śarīramiti / na hi pārivrājyapakṣe bhasmāntatā śarīrasya syāt / smṛtiśca-"niṣekādiśmaśānānto mantrairyasyodito vidhiḥ / tasyā śāstre 'dhikāro 'smiñjñeyo nānyasya kasyacit"iti / samantrakaṃ hi yatkarma vedeneha vidhīyate tasya śmaśānāntatāṃ darśayati smṛtiḥ / adhikārābhāvapradarśanāccātyantameva śrutyadhikārābhāvo 'karmiṇo gamyate / agnyudvāsanāpavādācca 'vīrahā vā eṣa devānāṃ yo 'gnimudvāsayate' iti / nanu vyutthānādivijhadhānādvaikalpikaṃ kriyāvasānatvaṃ vedārthasya / na / anyārthatvādvyutthānādiśrutīnām / 'yāvajjīvamannihotraṃ juhoti'"yājjīvaṃ darśapūrṇamāsābhyāṃ yajeta"ityevamādīnāṃ śrutīnāṃ jīvanamātranimittatvādyadā na śakyate 'nyārthatā kalpayituṃ tadā vyutthānādivākyānāṃ karmānadhikṛtaviṣayatvasaṃbhavāt / "kurvanneveha karmāṇi jijīvaṣecchataṃ samāḥ"iti ca mantravarṇājjarayā vā hyevāsmānmucyate mṛtyunā veti ca jarāmṛtyubhyāmanyatra karmaviyogācchidrāsaṃbhavātkarmiṇāṃ śmaśānāntatvaṃ na vaikalpikam / kāṇakubjādayo 'pi karmaṇyanadhikṛtā anugrāhyā eva śrutyeti vyutthānādyāśramāntaravidhānaṃ nānupapannam / pārivrājyākramavidhānasyānavakāśatvamiti cet / na / viśvajitsarvamedhayoryāvajjīvavidhyapavādatvāt / yāvajjīvāgnihotrādividherviśvajitsarvamedhayorevāpavādastatra ca kramapratipattisaṃbhavo"brahmacaryaṃ samāpya gṛhī bhavedgṛhādvanī bhutvā pravrajedi"ti virodhānupapatteḥ / na hyevaṃviṣayatve pārivrājyakamavidhānavākyasya kaścidvirodhaḥ kramapratipatteḥ / anyaviṣayaparikalpanāyāṃ kaścidbādhaḥ / nā'tmajñānasyāmṛtatvahetutvābhyupagamāt / yattāvadātmetyevopāsītetyārabhya sa eṣa neti netyetadantena granthena yadupasaṃhṛtamātmajñānaṃ tadamṛtatvasādhanamityabhyupagataṃ bhavatā / tatraitāvadevāmṛtatvasādhanamanyanirapekṣamityetanna mṛṣyate / tatra bhavantaṃ pṛcchāmi kimarthamātmajñānaṃ marṣayati bhavāniti / śṛṇu tatra kāraṇaṃ yathāsvargakāmasya svargaprāptyupāyamajānato 'gnihotrādi svargasādhanamabhyupagamyate tathehāpyātmajñānam / yathā jñāpyate tatābhūtamevāmṛtatvasādhanamātmajñānamabhyupagantuṃ yuktam tulyaprāmāṇyādubhayatra / yadyevaṃ kiṃ syāt / sarvakarmahetūpamardakatvādātmajñānasya vidyodbhave karmanivṛttiḥ syāt / dārāgnisaṃbaddhānāṃ tāvadagnihotrādikarmaṇāṃ bhedabuddhiviṣayasaṃpradānakārakasādhyatvam / anyabuddhiparacchedyāṃ hyagnyādidevatāṃ saṃpradānakārakabhūtāmantreṇa na hi tatkarma nirvartyate / yayā hi saṃpradānakārakabuddhyā saṃpradānakārakaṃ karmasādhanatvenopadiśyate seha vidyayā nivartyate"anyo 'sāvanyo 'hamasmīti na sa veda" "devāstaṃ parāduryo 'nyatrā'tmano devānveda" "mṛtyo sa mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati" "ekadhaivānudraṣṭavyaṃ sarvamātmānaṃ paśyati"ityādiśrutibhyaḥ / na ca deśakālanimitta dyapekṣatvaṃ vyavasthitātmavastuviṣayatvādātmajñānasya / kriyāyāstu puruṣatantratvātsyāddeśakālanimittādyepekṣatvam / jñānaṃ tu vastutantratvānna deśakālanimittādyapekṣate / yathāgniruṣṇa ākāśo 'mūrta iti tathā'tmavijñānamapu / nanvevaṃ sati prāmāṇabhūtasya karvidhernirodhaḥ syāt / na ca tulyapramāṇayoritaretaranirodho yuktaḥ / na / svābhāvikabhedabuddhimātranirodhakatvāt / na hi vidhyantaranirodhakamātmajñānam svābhāvikabhedabuddhimātraṃ niruṇaddhi / tathāpi hetvapahārātkarmānupapattervidhainirodha eva syāditi cet / na / kāmapratiṣedhātkāmyapravṛttinirodhavadadoṣāt / yathā svargakāmo yajeteti svargasādhane yāge pravṛttasya kāmapratiṣevidheḥ kāme vihate kāmyayāgānuṣṭhānapravṛttirnirudhyate / na caitāvatā kāmyavidhirniruddho bhavati / kāmapratiṣedhavidhinā kāmyavidheranarkatvajñānātpravṛtyanupapattiriti cet / ananuṣṭheyatve 'nuṣṭhāturabhāvādanuṣṭhānavidhyānarthakyādaprāmāṇyameva karmavidhīnāmiti cet / na / prāgātmajñānātpravṛtyupapatteḥ svābhāvikasya kriyākārakaphalabhedavijñānasya prāgātmajñānātkarmahetutvamupapadyata eva / yathā kāmaviṣaye doṣavijñānotpatteḥ prākkāmyakarmapravṛttihetutvaṃ syādeva svargādīcchāyāḥ svābhāvikyāstadvāt / tathā satyanarthārtho veda iti cet / na / arthānarthayorabhiprātatantratvāt / mokṣamekaṃ varjayitvānyasyāvidyāviṣayatvāta / puruṣābhiprāyatantrau hyārthānarthau / maraṇādikāmyeṣṭadarśanāt / tasmādyāvadātmajñānavidherābhimukhyaṃ tāvadeva karmavidhaya / tasmānnā'tmajñānasahabhāvitvaṃ karmaṇāmityataḥ siddhamātmajñānamevāmṛtatvasādhanametāvadare khalvamṛtatvamiti / karmanirapekṣatvājjñānasya / ato viduṣastāvatpārivrājyaṃ siddhaṃ saṃpradānādikarmakārakajātyādiśūnyāvikriyabrahmātmadṛḍhapratipattimātreṇa vacanamantareṇāpyuktanyāyataḥ / tathāca vyākhyātametat"yeṣāṃ no 'yamātmāyaṃ loka"iti hotuvacanena / pūrve vidvāsaḥ prajāmakāmayamānā vyuttiṣṭhantīti pārivrājyaṃ viduṣāmātmalokāvabodhādeva / tathāca vividiṣorapu siddhaṃ pārivrājyam / "etamevā'tmānaṃ lokamicchantaḥ pravrajanti"iti vacanāt / karmaṇāṃ cāvidvadviṣayatvamavocāma / avidyāviṣaye cotpatyāptivikārasaṃskārthāni karmāṇītyataḥ ātmasaṃskāradvaireṇā'tmajñānasādhanatvamapi karmaṇāmavocāma yajñādibhirvividaṣantīti / athaita satyavidviṣayāṇāmāśramakarmaṇāṃ balābalavicāraṇāyāmātmajñānotpādanaṃ prati yamapradhānānāmamānitvādīnāṃ mānasānāṃ ca dhyānajñānavairāgyādīnāṃ sannipatyopakāratvam / hiṃsārāgadveṣādibāhulyādbahukliṣṭakarmavimiśritā itara ityataḥ pārivrājyaṃ mumukṣūṇāṃ praśaṃsanti-"tyāga eva hi sarveṣāmuktānāmapi karmaṇām / vairāgyaṃ punaretasya mokṣasya paramo 'vadhiḥ" // "kiṃ te dhanena kimu bandhubhiste kiṃ te dārairbrāhmaṇa yo mariṣyasi / ātmānamanviccha guhā praviṣṭaṃ pitāmahāste kva gatāḥ pitā ca // "evaṃ sākhyayogaśāstreṣu ca saṃnyāso jñānaṃ prati pratyāsanna ucyate / kāmapravṛttyabhāvācca / kāmapravṛtterhi jñānapratikūlatā sarvaśāstreṣu prasiddhā / tasmādviraktasya mumukṣorvināpi jñānena brahmacaryādeva pravrajedityādyūpapannam / nanu sāvakāśatvādanadhikṛtaviṣayametadityuktaṃ yāvajjīvaśrutyuparodhāt / naiṣa doṣaḥ / nitarāṃ sāvakāśatvādyāvajjīvaśrutīnām / avadvitkāmikartavyatā hyavocāma sarvakarmaṇām / na tu nirapekṣameva jīvananimittameva kartavyaṃ karma / prāyeṇahi puruṣāḥ kāmabahulāḥ / kāmaścānekaviṣayo 'nekakarmasādhanasādhyaśca / anekaphalasādhanāni ca vaidikāni karmāṇi dārāgnisaṃbandhapuruṣakartavyānu punaḥ punaścānuṣṭhīyamānānu bahuphalānu kṛṣyādivadvarṣaśatasamāptīni ca gārhasthye vāraṇye vātastadapekṣayā yāvajjīvaśrutayaḥ / 'kurvanneveha karmāṇi' iti ca mantravarṇaḥ / tasmiṃśca pakṣe viśvajitsarvamedhayoḥ karmaparityāgaḥ / yasmiṃśca pakṣe yāvajjīvānuṣṭhānaṃ tadā śmaśānāntatvaṃ bhasmāntatā ca śarīrasya / itaravarṇāpekṣayā vā yāvajjīvaśrutiḥ / na hi kṣattriyavaiśyayo pārivrājyapratipattirasti / tathā 'mantrairyasyodito vidhiḥ' / 'aikāśramyaṃ tvācāryā' ityevamādīnāṃ kṣatriyavaiśyāpekṣatvam / tasmātpuruśasāmarthayajñānavairāgyakāmādyapekṣayā vyutthānavikalpakramapārivrājyapripattaprakārā na virudhyante / anadhikṛtānāṃ ca pṛthagvidhānātpārivrājyas 'snātako vāsnātako votsannāgniranagniko ve'tyādinā / tasmātsiddhāśramāntarāṇyadhikṛtānāmeva //	In all the four chapters one and the same self has been ascertained to be the Supreme Brahman. But the means to Its attainment are various. The goal of all of them, however, is that Self which has been pointed out in the second chapter in the words, ‘Now therefore the description: Not this, not this’ (II. iii. 6). The same has also been ascertained in the third chapter, in the dialogue between Śākalya and Yājñavalkya, where death (the falling off of the head) was mentioned as the wager; then at the end of the third chapter, next in the dialogue between Janaka and Yājñavalkya, and again here at the conclusion of the Upaniṣad. In order to show that all the four chapters are exclusively devoted to this Self, and that no other meaning is intended in between, the conclusion has been made with the words, ‘This self is That which has been described as “Not this, not this,”’ etc. Since, in spite of the truth being presented in a hundred ways, the Self is the last word of it all, arrived at by the process of ‘Not this, not this,’ and nothing else is perceived either through reasoning or through scriptural statement, therefore the knowledge of this Self by the process of ‘Not this, not this’ and the renunciation of everything are the only means of attaining immortality. To bring out this conclusion the text says: This much indeed—this realisation of the Self, the one without a second, by the eliminating process of ‘Not this, not this,’ is (the means of) immortality, my dear Maitreyī, and this is independent of any auxiliary means. That of which you asked me saying, ‘Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality),’ is just this much. So you have known it. Saying this, describing this Self-knowledge, the means of immortality, to his beloved wife Maitreyī, Yājñavalkya—what did he do?—did what he had first proposed saying, ‘I am going to renounce this life’—left, i.e. became a monk. The discussion of the knowledge of Brahman, culminating in renunciation, is finished. This much is the instruction, this is the teaching of the Vedas, this is the ultimate goal, this is the end of what a man should do to achieve his highest good. Now we are going to have a discussion in order to get a clear conception of the meaning of the scriptures, for we see various conflicting statements in them. For instance, the following texts indicate that there is only one order of life (the householder’s): ‘One should perform the Agnihotra for life’ (Ba.), ‘One should perform the new and full moon sacrifices for life’ (Ibid.), ‘One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only performing rites’ (Iś. 2), ‘This Agnihotra is a sacrifice that must be continued till decay and death come’ (Ś. XII. iv. ii. 1), and so on. There are also statements establishing another order of life (monasticism): ‘Knowing (the Self)... they give up desires... and renounce their homes,’[3] ‘After finishing the student life he should be a householder, from that he should pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and then become a monk. Or he may do otherwise—he should renounce the world from the student life itself, or from the householder’s life, or from the hermit life’ (Np. 77; Jā. 4, adapted), ‘There are but two outstanding paths—first the path of rites, and next monasticism; of these the latter excels’ (cf. Tai. Ā. X. lxii. 12), and ‘Neither through rites, nor through progeny, nor through wealth, but through renunciation some attained immortality’ (Mn. X. 5; Kai. 2). Similarly the Smṛtis: ‘One who leads the student life renounces’ (Āp. II. xxi. 8, 19), ‘One who leads a perfectly celibate life may enter into any order of life’ (Va. VIII. 2), ‘Some say he has an option of choosing his order of life’ (Gau. III. 1); also, ‘After studying the Vedas as a student, he should seek to have sons and grandsons to purify his ancestors. Lighting the sacred fires and making sacrifices according to the injunctions, he should retire into the forest and then seek to become a monk’ (Mbh. XII. clxxiv. 6), ‘The Brāhmaṇa, after performing the sacrifice to Prajāpati and giving all his wealth to the priests as remuneration, should place the fires within himself and renounce his home’ (M. VI. 38), and so on. Thus hundreds of contradictory passages from the Śrutis and Smṛtis are found, inculcating an option with regard to renunciation, or a succession among the orders of life, or the adoption of any one of them at will. The conduct of those who are versed in these scriptures has also been mutually conflicting. And there is disagreement even among great scholars who understand the meaning of the scriptures. Hence it is impossible for persons of shallow understanding clearly to grasp the meaning of the scriptures. It is only those who have a firm hold on the scriptures and logic, that Can distinguish the particular meaning of any of those passages from that of the others. Therefore, in order to indicate their exact meaning, we shall discuss them according to our understanding. Prima facie view: The Vedas inculcate only rites, for the Śruti passages such as, ‘(One should perform the Agnihotra) for life’ (Ba.), admit of no other meaning. The Śruti speaks of the last rite of a man in these terms, ‘They burn him with the sacrificial vessels.’ There is also the statement about the rites being continued till decay and death come. Besides there is this hint, ‘(This) body, reduced to ashes,’ etc. (V. xv. i; īś. 17). If he were a monk, his body should not be reduced to ashes. The Smṛti also says, ‘He alone should be considered entitled to the study of these scriptures, whose rites from conception to the funeral ground are performed with the utterance of sacred formulæ, and no one else’ (M. II. 16). The rites that are enjoined by the Vedas to be performed in this life with the utterance of sacred formulæ, are shown by the Smṛti to terminate only on the funeral ground. And because a man who does not perform those rites is not entitled (to the study of the Smṛtis), he is absolutely debarred from having any right to the study of the Vedas. Besides, it is forbidden to extinguish the sacred fire, as in the passage, ‘He who extinguishes the sacred fire destroys the power of the gods’ (Tai. S. I. v. ii. 1). Question: Since renunciation etc. are also en joined, is not the import of the Vedas as inculcating rites only optional? The opponent’s answer: No, for the Śruti texts inculcating renunciation etc. have a different meaning. To be explicit: Since such Śruti texts as, ‘One should perform the Agnihotra for life’ (Ba.), ‘One should perform the new and full moon sacrifices for life’ (Ibid.), make such rites depend on life itself, and for that reason cannot be interpreted differently, whereas the passages inculcating renunciation etc. are applicable to those who are unfit for rites, therefore there is no option (with regard to the meaning of the Vedas as inculcating rites). Besides, since the Śruti says, ‘One should wish to live a hundred years tin earth only performing rites’ (Iś. 2), and the passage, ‘One is absolved (from rites) either by extreme old age or by death’ ÍŚ. XIL iv. i. i), leaves no room for the ritualist to quit the rites except in the event of extreme old age or death, the injunction regarding their being, continued in these cases up to the funeral ground, is not optional. Moreover, the blind, the hump-backed, and so forth, who are unfit for rites, surely deserve the compassion of the Śruti; hence the injunction about other orders of life such as monasticism are not out of place (as being applicable to them). Question: But there will be no room for the injunction regarding the sequence of monasticism. The opponent’s answer: Not so, for the Viśvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices will be an exception[4] to the rule about the lifelong performance of sacrifices. In other words, these two sacrifices are the only exceptions to the injunction about the lifelong performance of sacrifices, and the succession referred to in the passage, ‘After finishing the student life he should be a householder, from that he should pass on to the life of a hermit in the forest, and then become a monk’ (Np. 77; Jā. 4, adapted), is applicable to these cases. There will thus be no contradiction. That is to say, if the injunction relating to the sequence of monasticism applies to such cases, then there is no contradiction, for the sequence holds good. But if it is regarded as applicable to other cases, the injunction about the lifelong performance of sacrifices is restricted in its scope. Whereas, if the sequence is applicable to the Viśvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices, there is no such contradiction. The Advaitins reply: Your view is wrong, for you have admitted Self-knowledge to be the means of immortality. To be explicit: You have admitted the Self-knowledge that has been introduced with the words, ‘The Self alone is to be meditated upon’ (I iv. 7), and concluded with, ‘This self is That which has been described as “Not this, not this,”’ (III. ix. 26). So you are only reluctant to admit that this much alone is the means of immortality, independently of anything else. Now I ask you why you are intolerant of Self-knowledge. Objection: Here is my reason. As, to a person who wants heaven, but does not know the means of its attainment, the Vedas inculcate such means as the Agnihotra, so here also, to one who wants to attain immortality, but does not know the means of it, they inculcate the instruction desired—‘Tell me, sir, of that alone which you know (to be the only means of immortality, (II. iv. 3; IV. v. 4)—in the words, ‘This much... my dear’ (IV. v. 15). Reply: In that case, just as you admit the Agnihotra etc., inculcated by the Vedas, to be the means of attaining heaven, so also you should do with Self-knowledge. You should admit it to be the means of immortality exactly as it is inculcated, for in either case the authority is the same. Objection: What would happen if it is admitted? Reply: Since Self-knowledge destroys the cause of all actions, the awakening of knowledge would terminate them. Now rites such as the Agnihotra, which are connected with the wife and fire, can be performed only if there are agencies for whom they are meant, and this entails an idea of difference. In other words, they cannot be performed unless there are the gods—Fire, etc.—for whose sake they are undertaken, and this last depends on the sacrificer’s regarding the gods as different from himself. That notion of difference regarding the deities to be honoured, in view of which such deities are recommended by the Vedas as means to sacrifices, is destroyed in the state of enlightenment by knowledge, as we know from such Śruti passages as, ‘He (who worships another god thinking), “He is one, and I am another,” does not know’ (I. iv. io), ‘The gods oust one who knows them as different from the Self’ (II. iv. 6; IV. v. 7), ‘He goes from death to death who sees difference, as it were, in It’ (IV. iv. 19; Ka. IV. 10), ‘It should be realised in one form only’ (IV. iv. 20), and ‘He sees all as the Self’ (IV. iv. 23). Nor is Self-knowledge dependent on place, time, circumstances, etc., for it relates to the Self, which is an eternal verity. It is rites which, being bound up with persons (i e. subjective), may depend on place, time, circumstances, etc.; but knowledge, being bound up with reality (i.e. objective), never depends on them. As fire is hot, and as the ether is formless (independently of place, time, etc.), so also is Self-knowledge. Objection: If this is so, the Vedic injunctions about rites, which are an unquestionable authority, are nullified; and of two things possessing equal authority, one should not nullify the other. Reply: Not so, for Self-knowledge only destroys one’s natural idea of difference. It does not nullify other injunctions; it only stops the idea of difference ingrained in us. Objection: Still, when the cause of rites is removed, they are impossible, and it virtually means that the injunctions regarding them are gone. Reply: No, it is not open to the charge, for it is analogous to the cessation of our tendency to perform rites having material ends, when desire itself has been removed. Just as a man, induced to perform a sacrifice leading to heaven by the injunction, ‘One who desires heaven must perform sacrifices’ (Tā. XVI. iii. 3), gives up his inclination to perform this kind of sacrifice with a material end when his desire has been removed by the injunctions forbidding desires. His action does not nullify the injunctions regarding rites with material ends. Objection: The injunction forbidding desires leads to an impression about the uselessness of them, and consequently the injunctions advocating rites with material ends cannot operate. So these injunctions are virtually nullified. Reply: If Self-knowledge nullifies the injunctions about rites in the same way, we admit this. Objection: But this would take away the authority of the injunctions about rites, just as the injunctions about rites with material ends are null and void when desire is forbidden. In other words, if rites are not to be undertaken, with the result that there is no one to perform them, then the injunctions about their performance become useless, and consequently the whole section of the Vedas dealing with such injunctions necessarily loses its authority. Reply: No, it will be operative prior to the awakening of Self-knowledge. Our natural consciousness of difference regarding action, its factors and its results, will, previous to the awakening of Self-knowledge, certainly continue to be an incentive to the performance of rites, just as, before the idea about the harmful nature of desires arises, our natural craving for heaven etc. will certainly induce us to engage in rites having material ends. Objection: In that case the Vedas are a sdurce of evil. Reply: No, good and evil depend on one’s intentions, for except liberation alone everything else comes within the province of ignorance. Good and evil are matters of personal whims, for we find that sacrifices are performed with death as their objective.[5] Therefore the injunctions about rites are operative only until one is confronted with those about Self-knowledge. Hence rites do not go hand in hand with Self-knowledge, which proves that this alone is the means of immortality, as set forth in the words, ‘This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear’ (IV. v. 15), for knowledge is independent of rites. Hence, even without any explicit injunction to that effect, the enlightened sage can, for reasons already stated,[6] embrace the monastic life simply through his strong conviction about the identity of the individual self with Brahman that is devoid of the factors of an action such as the deity to whom it is performed as well as caste etc., and is immutable. Since the ancient sages, not caring for children, renounced their homes on the ground stated in the clause, ‘We who have attained this Self, this world’ (IV. iv. 22), therefore,?ls it has been explained, this renunciation of their homes by the sages can take place simply by their knowing[7] the world of the Self. Similarly it is proved that the man who seeks illumination can also renounce the world, for there is the statement, ‘Desiring this world alone monks renounce their homes’ (Ibid.). And we have said that rites are for the unenlightened. That is to say, because so long as ignorance persists there is scope for rites intended to produce, attain, modify, or purify, therefore rites, as we have stated, are also the means of Self-knowledge through the purification of the mind, as the Śruti says that the Brāhmaṇas seek to know It through sacrifices, etc. Under the circumstances, if we examine the comparative efficacy, for bringing forth Self-knowledge, of the duties pertaining to the different orders of life, which concern only the unenlightened, we find that virtues such as the absence of pride which are mainly intended for the control of the senses, and meditation, discrimination, non-attachment, etc., which deal with the mind, are the direct aids. The others, owing to the predominance of injury, attachment, aversion, etc. in them, are mixed up with a good deal of evil work. Hence the monastic life is recommended for seekers after liberation, as in the following passages, ‘The giving up of all duties that have been described (as belonging to particular orders of life) is (best). Renunciation, again, is the culmination of this giving up of the duties,’ ‘O Brāhmaṇa, what will you do with wealth, or friends, or a wife, for you shall have to die? Seek the Self that has entered the cave of your intellect. Where are your grandfather and other ancestors gone, as well as your father?’ (Mbh. XII. clxxiv. 38). In the Sāṃkhya and Yoga systems also renunciation is spoken of as a direct means of knowledge. The absence of the impulsion of desire is another reason (why the seeker after liberation renounces the world). For all the scriptures tell us that the impulsion of desire is antagonistic to knowledge. Therefore, for a seeker after liberation who is disgusted with the world, the statement, ‘He should renounce the world from the student life itself,’ etc. (Np. 77), is quite reasonable, even if he is without knowledge. Objection: But we have said that renunciation is for the man who is unfit for rites, for there alone is the scope for them; otherwise the dictum of the Śruti about the lifelong performance of rites would be contradicted. Reply: The objection does not hold, for there is enough scope for those statements of the Śruti. We have already (p. 758) said that all rites are for the unenlightened man with desire. It is not absolutely that rites are enjoined for life. For men are generally full of desires, which concern various objects and require the help of many rites and their means. The Vedic rites are the means of various results and are to be performed by a man related to a wife and the fire; they produce many results, being performed again and again, like agriculture etc., and take a hundred years to finish, either in the householder's life or in the forest life. Hence in view of them the Śruti texts enjoin lifelong rites. The Mantra also says, ‘One should wish to live a hundred years on earth only performing rites’ (Iś. 2). The giving up of rites after the Viśvajit and Sarvamedha sacrifices refers to such a man; while in the case of those on whom lifelong rites are enjoined, these should be continued right up to the funeral ground, and the body consumed in fire. Or it may be that the injunctions of the Śruti about the lifelong performance of rites concern the other two castes except the Brāhmaṇa, for the Ksatriya and the Vaiśya are not entitled to the monastic life. In that case, texts such as, ‘Whose rites... are performed with the utterance of sacred formulae’ (M. II. 16), and ‘The teachers speak of only one order of life,’ etc. (Gau. III. 36; Bau. II. vi. 29), would refer to the Kṣatriyas and Vaiśyas. Therefore, in accordance with a person's capacity, knowledge, non-attachment, desire, etc., the various methods of an option with regard to renunciation, or a succession among the orders of life, or the embracing of the monastic life are not contradictory. And since monasticism has been separately enjoined on those who are unfit for rites, in the passage, ‘Whether he has completed his course of study or not, whether he has discarded[8] the fire or been released[9] from it,’ etc. (Jā. 4), (the above injunctions about monasticism refer to normal people qualified for rites). Therefore it is proved that the other three orders of life (besides the householder’s life) are surely meant for those who are qualified for rites. -translatio by Swami Madhvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.5.15)

Citation 1.1.3: From  शारीरकमीमांससूत्र  / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (# 1.2.20)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  शारीरकमीमांससूत्र  / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)   as denoted below:

Citation 3  in the original post of Ramesam Vemuri

विद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं वारयति ॥ “ 2.4.14, BU precludes all dealings within the sphere of illumination.”  (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda)”.

    In order to holistically analyze the above claim, let us here too, as in the previous case, begin our analysis from the मूलसूत्र (mūlasūtra – original aphorism) relating to the above citation. श्री बादरायण महऋषि (śrī bādarāyaṇa mahaṛṣi) who is its revered सूत्रकार (sūtrakāra - aphorist) declares thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
शारीरश्चोभयेऽपि हि भेदेनैनमधीयते।।	śārīraścōbhayē'pi hi bhēdēnainamadhīyatē।।	The embodied soul also (is not the internal Ruler) for the followers of both the recensions read of this one as different. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:शारीरिक ब्रह्म्सूत्र (śārīrika brahmsūtra) (1.2.20)

     Now let us look a closer look at the specific portions from the शारीरकमीमांससूत्र / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) that are directly related to the citation in question. The commentarial extract is given here.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
नेति पूर्वसूत्रादनुवर्तते। शारीरश्च नान्तर्यामी स्यात्। कस्मात् यद्यपि द्रष्टृत्वादयो धर्मास्तस्य संभवन्ति तथापि घटाकाशवदुपाधिपरिच्छिन्नत्वान्न कात्स्न्र्येन पृथिव्यादिष्वन्तरवस्थातुं नियन्तुं च शक्नोति। अपि चोभयेऽपि हि शाखिनः काण्वा माध्यंदिनाश्चान्तर्यामिणो भेदेनैनं शारीरं पृथिव्यादिवदधिष्ठानत्वेन नियम्यत्वेन चाधीयते यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन् इति काण्वाः। य आत्मनि तिष्ठन् इति माध्यंदिनाः। य आत्मनि तिष्ठन् इत्यस्मिंस्तावत् पाठे भवत्यात्मशब्दः शारीरस्य वाचकः। यो विज्ञाने तिष्ठन् इत्यस्मिन्नपि पाठे विज्ञानशब्देन शारीर उच्यते विज्ञानमयो हि शारीर इति। तस्माच्छारीरादन्य ईश्वरोऽन्तर्यामीति सिद्धम्। कथं पुनरेकस्मिन्देहे द्वौ द्रष्टारावुपपद्येते यश्चायमीश्वरोऽन्तर्यामी यश्चायमितरः शारीरः का पुनरिहानुपपत्तिः नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा इत्यादिश्रुतिवचनं विरुध्येत। अत्र हि प्रकृतादन्तर्यामिणोऽन्यं द्रष्टारं श्रोतारं मन्तारं विज्ञातारं चात्मानं प्रतिषेधति। नियन्त्रन्तरप्रतिषेधार्थमेतद्वचनमिति चेत् न नियन्त्रन्तराप्रसङ्गादविशेषश्रवणाच्च। अत्रोच्यते अविद्याप्रत्युपस्थापितकार्यकरणोपाधिनिमित्तोऽयं शारीरान्तर्यामिणोर्भेदव्यपदेशः न पारमार्थिकः। एको हि प्रत्यगात्मा भवति न द्वौ प्रत्यगात्मानौ संभवतः। एकस्यैव तु भेदव्यवहार उपाधिकृतः यथा घटाकाशो महाकाश इति। ततश्च ज्ञातृज्ञेयादिभेदश्रुतयः प्रत्यक्षादीनि च प्रमाणानि संसारानुभवो विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रं चेति सर्वमेतदुपपद्यते। तथा च श्रुतिः यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति इत्यविद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं दर्शयति। यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत् इति विद्याविषये सर्वं व्यवहारं वारयति।।	nēti pūrvasūtrādanuvartatē। śārīraśca nāntaryāmī syāt। kasmāt yadyapi draṣṭr̥tvādayō dharmāstasya saṁbhavanti tathāpi ghaṭākāśavadupādhiparicchinnatvānna kātsnryēna pr̥thivyādiṣvantaravasthātuṁ niyantuṁ ca śaknōti। api cōbhayē'pi hi śākhinaḥ kāṇvā mādhyaṁdināścāntaryāmiṇō bhēdēnainaṁ śārīraṁ pr̥thivyādivadadhiṣṭhānatvēna niyamyatvēna cādhīyatē yō vijñānē tiṣṭhan iti kāṇvāḥ। ya ātmani tiṣṭhan iti mādhyaṁdināḥ। ya ātmani tiṣṭhan ityasmiṁstāvat pāṭhē bhavatyātmaśabdaḥ śārīrasya vācakaḥ। yō vijñānē tiṣṭhan ityasminnapi pāṭhē vijñānaśabdēna śārīra ucyatē vijñānamayō hi śārīra iti। tasmācchārīrādanya īśvarō'ntaryāmīti siddham। kathaṁ punarēkasmindēhē dvau draṣṭārāvupapadyētē yaścāyamīśvarō'ntaryāmī yaścāyamitaraḥ śārīraḥ kā punarihānupapattiḥ nānyō'tō'sti draṣṭā ityādiśrutivacanaṁ virudhyēta। atra hi prakr̥tādantaryāmiṇō'nyaṁ draṣṭāraṁ śrōtāraṁ mantāraṁ vijñātāraṁ cātmānaṁ pratiṣēdhati। niyantrantarapratiṣēdhārthamētadvacanamiti cēt na niyantrantarāprasaṅgādaviśēṣaśravaṇācca। atrōcyatē avidyāpratyupasthāpitakāryakaraṇōpādhinimittō'yaṁ śārīrāntaryāmiṇōrbhēdavyapadēśaḥ na pāramārthikaḥ। ēkō hi pratyagātmā bhavati na dvau pratyagātmānau saṁbhavataḥ। ēkasyaiva tu bhēdavyavahāra upādhikr̥taḥ yathā ghaṭākāśō mahākāśa iti। tataśca jñātr̥jñēyādibhēdaśrutayaḥ pratyakṣādīni ca pramāṇāni saṁsārānubhavō vidhipratiṣēdhaśāstraṁ cēti sarvamētadupapadyatē। tathā ca śrutiḥ yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraṁ paśyati ityavidyāviṣayē sarvaṁ vyavahāraṁ darśayati। yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūttatkēna kaṁ paśyēt iti vidyāviṣayē sarvaṁ vyavahāraṁ vārayati।।	The word "not" has to be supplied from the previous aphorism. The embodied soul is not intended as the internal Ruler. Why? Although it is possible for the embodied soul to be the witness and so on, still, being limited by conditioning factors, like space in pot, it cannot, in the. fullest sense, exist within the earth etc. and rule them from inside. Besides, the followers of both the Kāṇva and Mādhyandina recensions (of the Śatapata Brāhmaṇa) read of the embodied soul as being an entity different from the internal Ruler, and as being a habitation for and an object of control, like the earth, under the internal Ruler. The Kāṇvas read: "He who inhabits the intellect" (Br. III. vii. 22); and the Mādhyandinas have: "He who inhabits the ātmā" the word ātmā standing as a synonym for the embodied soul. And even in the reading, "He who inhabits the intellect (vijñāna)", the word intellect means the embodied soul, which is but the entity identifying itself with the intellect. Therefore, it stands established that God, the internal Ruler, is distinct from the embodied soul. Opponent: How, again, can there be two witnesses in the same body-the one that is this God, the internal Ruler, and the other that is the embodied soul? Vedāntin: What incongruity is there? Opponent: Since the Upaniṣadic text, "There is no other witness but Him" (Br. III. vii. 23), will stand contradicted; for in that text it is denied that any Self, other than the internal Ruler under discussion, can be the witness, hearer, thinker, or knower. Objection: May this not be meant for the denial of other rulers? Opponent: No, for no other ruler is under consideration, and the Upaniṣadic denial is made without any reservation. Vedāntin: With regard to this, it is said: This mention of the distinction between the embodied soul and the internal Ruler is based on the limiting adjunct of body and senses, conjured up by ignorance, but this is not so in any real sense. For the indwelling Self can be but one, and not two. The same one, however, is mentioned as two owing to conditioning factors, as for instance it is said, "the pot-space", "the cosmic space". From this standpoint, the Vedic texts about the difference between the knower and things known, the means of valid knowledge like perception, the experience of transmigration, and scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions, 1 become justifiable. Thus it is that the text, "Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something" (Br. II. iv. 14), shows that all dealings are possible within the range of ignorance; and the text, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what?" (ibid.), precludes all dealings within the sphere of illumination. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:शारीरिक ब्रह्म्सूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīrika brahmsūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.2.20)

Again, for better understanding let us look at the complete version of the मूलश्रुतिवाक्य (mūlaśrutivākya – original revelatory verdict) which occurs part of the मधुकाण्डकाण्डबृहदारण्यकोपनिषदस्य (madhukāṇḍabṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadasya – madhu section of brihadaranyaka upanishad)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति, तदितर इतरं पश्यति, तदितर इतरम् श्र्णोति, तदितर इतरमभिवदति, तदितर इतरम् मनुते, तदितर इतरं विजानाति; यत्र वा अस्य सर्वमात्माइवाभूत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्, तत्केन कं पश्येत्, तत्केन कं शृणुयत्, तत्केन कमभिवदेत्, तत्केन कं मन्वीत, तत्केन कं विजानीयात्? येनेदम् सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्? विज्ञातारम् अरे केन विजानीयादिति ॥	yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraṁ jighrati, taditara itaraṁ paśyati, taditara itaram śrṇōti, taditara itaramabhivadati, taditara itaram manutē, taditara itaraṁ vijānāti; yatra vā asya sarvamātmāivābhūttatkēna kaṁ jighrēt, tatkēna kaṁ paśyēt, tatkēna kaṁ śr̥ṇuyat, tatkēna kamabhivadēt, tatkēna kaṁ manvīta, tatkēna kaṁ vijānīyāt? yēnēdam sarvaṁ vijānāti, taṁ kēna vijānīyāt? vijñātāram arē kēna vijānīyāditi ॥	Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known—through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the Knower ? -translation by Swami Madhvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (2.4.14)

Now let us try to understand what जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) as part of his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above मूलश्रुतिवाक्य (mūlaśrutivākya – original revelatory verdict) has got to explain here.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
कथं तर्हि प्रेत्य संज्ञा नास्तीत्युच्यते /शृणु / यत्र यस्मिन्नविद्याकल्पिते कार्यकरणसंघातोपाधिजनिते विशेषात्मनि खिल्यभावे हि यस्मादद्द्वैतमिव पारमार्थतो ऽद्वैते ब्रह्मणि द्वैतमिव भिन्नमिव वस्त्वन्तरमात्मन उपलक्ष्यते / ननु द्वैतेनोपमीयमानत्वाद्द्वैतस्य पारमार्थिकत्वमिति / न / ऽवाचाऽरम्भणं विकारो नामधेयमिऽति श्रुत्यन्तरा ऽदेकमेवाऽद्वितीयमात्मैवेदं सर्वामिति च / तत्तत्र यस्माद्द्वैतमिव तस्मादेवेतरो ऽसौ परमात्मनः खिल्यभूत आत्मापरमार्थश्चन्द्रोदेरिवोदकचन्द्रादिप्रतिबिम्ब इतरो घ्रातेतरेण ध्राणेनेतरं घ्रातव्यं जिघ्रति / इतर इतरमिति कारकप्रदर्शनार्थं जिघ्रतीति क्रियाफलयोरभिधानम् / यथा छिन्त्तीति यथोद्यम्योद्यम्य निपातनं छेदस्य च द्वैधीभाव उभयं छिनत्तीत्येकेनैव शब्देनाभिधीयते क्रियावसानत्वात्क्रियाव्यतिरेकेण च तत्फलस्यानुपलम्भात् / इतरो घ्राणेतरेण घ्राणेनेतरं घ्रतव्यं जिघ्रति तथा सर्वं पूर्ववद्विजानाति / इयमविद्यावदवस्था / यत्र तु ब्रह्मविद्ययाविद्या नाशमुपगमिता तत्राऽत्मव्यतिरेकेणान्यस्याभावः / यत्र वा अस्य ब्रह्मविदः सर्वं नामरूपाद्यात्मन्येव प्रविलापितमात्मैव संवृत्तं यत्रैवमात्मैवाभूत्तत्र केन करणेन कं ध्रातव्यं को जिघ्रेत्तथा पश्योद्विजानीयात् / सर्वत्र हि कारकसाध्या क्रिया / अतः कारकाभावे ऽनुपपत्तिः क्रियायाः क्रियाभावे च फलाभावः / तस्मादविद्यायामेव सत्यां क्रियाकारकफलव्यवहारो न ब्रह्मविदः / आत्मत्वादेव सर्वस्य नाऽत्मव्यतिरेकेण कारकं क्रियाफलं वास्ति / नचानात्मा सन्सर्वमात्मैव भवति कस्यचित् / तस्मादविद्ययैवानात्त्मत्वं परिकल्पितं न तु परमार्थत आत्मव्यतिरेकेणास्ति किञ्चित् / तस्मात्परमार्थात्मैकत्वप्रत्यये क्रियाकारकफलप्रत्ययानुपपत्तिः / अतो विरोधाद्ब्रह्मविदः क्रियाणां तत्साधनानां चान्त्यन्तमेव निवृत्तिः / केन किमिति क्षेपार्थं वचनं प्रकारान्तरानुपपत्तिदर्शनार्थम् / केनचिदपि प्रकारेण क्रियाकरणादिकारकानुपपत्तेः / केनत्चित्कञ्चित्काश्चित्कथं चिन्न जिव्रेदेवेत्यर्थः / यत्राप्यविद्यावस्थायामन्यो ऽन्यं पश्यति तत्रापि येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयाद्येन विजानाति तस्य करणस्य विज्ञेये विनियुक्तत्वात् / ज्ञातुश्व ज्ञेय एव हि जिज्ञासा नाऽत्मनि / न चाग्नेरिवाऽत्माऽत्मनो विषयो न चाविषये ज्ञातुर्ज्ञानमुपपद्यते / तस्माद्येनेदं विजानाति तं विज्ञातारं केन करणेन को वान्यो विजानीयात् / यदा तु पुनः परमार्थविवेकिनो ब्रह्मविदो विज्ञातैव केवलो ऽद्वयो वर्तते तं विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादिति /	kathaṃ tarhi pretya saṃjñā nāstītyucyate /śṛṇu / yatra yasminnavidyākalpite kāryakaraṇasaṃghātopādhijanite viśeṣātmani khilyabhāve hi yasmādaddvaitamiva pāramārthato 'dvaite brahmaṇi dvaitamiva bhinnamiva vastvantaramātmana upalakṣyate / nanu dvaitenopamīyamānatvāddvaitasya pāramārthikatvamiti / na / 'vācā'rambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyami'ti śrutyantarā 'dekamevā'dvitīyamātmaivedaṃ sarvāmiti ca / tattatra yasmāddvaitamiva tasmādevetaro 'sau paramātmanaḥ khilyabhūta ātmāparamārthaścandroderivodakacandrādipratibimba itaro ghrātetareṇa dhrāṇenetaraṃ ghrātavyaṃ jighrati / itara itaramiti kārakapradarśanārthaṃ jighratīti kriyāphalayorabhidhānam / yathā chinttīti yathodyamyodyamya nipātanaṃ chedasya ca dvaidhībhāva ubhayaṃ chinattītyekenaiva śabdenābhidhīyate kriyāvasānatvātkriyāvyatirekeṇa ca tatphalasyānupalambhāt / itaro ghrāṇetareṇa ghrāṇenetaraṃ ghratavyaṃ jighrati tathā sarvaṃ pūrvavadvijānāti / iyamavidyāvadavasthā / yatra tu brahmavidyayāvidyā nāśamupagamitā tatrā'tmavyatirekeṇānyasyābhāvaḥ / yatra vā asya brahmavidaḥ sarvaṃ nāmarūpādyātmanyeva pravilāpitamātmaiva saṃvṛttaṃ yatraivamātmaivābhūttatra kena karaṇena kaṃ dhrātavyaṃ ko jighrettathā paśyodvijānīyāt / sarvatra hi kārakasādhyā kriyā / ataḥ kārakābhāve 'nupapattiḥ kriyāyāḥ kriyābhāve ca phalābhāvaḥ / tasmādavidyāyāmeva satyāṃ kriyākārakaphalavyavahāro na brahmavidaḥ / ātmatvādeva sarvasya nā'tmavyatirekeṇa kārakaṃ kriyāphalaṃ vāsti / nacānātmā sansarvamātmaiva bhavati kasyacit / tasmādavidyayaivānāttmatvaṃ parikalpitaṃ na tu paramārthata ātmavyatirekeṇāsti kiñcit / tasmātparamārthātmaikatvapratyaye kriyākārakaphalapratyayānupapattiḥ / ato virodhādbrahmavidaḥ kriyāṇāṃ tatsādhanānāṃ cāntyantameva nivṛttiḥ / kena kimiti kṣepārthaṃ vacanaṃ prakārāntarānupapattidarśanārtham / kenacidapi prakāreṇa kriyākaraṇādikārakānupapatteḥ / kenatcitkañcitkāścitkathaṃ cinna jivredevetyarthaḥ / yatrāpyavidyāvasthāyāmanyo 'nyaṃ paśyati tatrāpi yenedaṃ sarvaṃ vijānāti taṃ kena vijānīyādyena vijānāti tasya karaṇasya vijñeye viniyuktatvāt / jñātuśva jñeya eva hi jijñāsā nā'tmani / na cāgnerivā'tmā'tmano viṣayo na cāviṣaye jñāturjñānamupapadyate / tasmādyenedaṃ vijānāti taṃ vijñātāraṃ kena karaṇena ko vānyo vijānīyāt / yadā tu punaḥ paramārthavivekino brahmavido vijñātaiva kevalo 'dvayo vartate taṃ vijñātāramare kena vijānīyāditi /	Why then is it said that after attaining oneness the self has no more consciousness? Listen. Because when, i.e. in the presence of the particular or individual aspect of the Self due to the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs conjured up by ignorance, there is duality, as it were, in Brahman, which really is one without a second, i.e. there appears to be something different from the Self. Objection: Since duality is put forward as an object for comparison, is it not taken to be real? Reply: No, tor another Śruti says, ‘Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech’ (Ch. VI. i. 4-6 and iv. 1-4), also ‘One only without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1), and ‘All this is but the Self’ (Ch. VII. XXV. 2). Then, just because there is- duality as it were, therefore one, he who smells, viz. the unreal individual aspect of the Supreme Self, comparable to the reflection of the moon etc. in water, smells something that can be smelt, through something else, viz. the nose. ‘One’ and ‘something’ refer to two typical factors of an action, the agent and object, and ‘smells' signifies the action and its result. As for instance in the word 'cuts.' This one word signifies the repeated strokes dealt and the separation of the object cut into two; for an action ends in a result, and the result cannot be perceived apart from the action. Similarly he who smells a thing that can be smelt does it through the nose. The rest is to be explained as above. One knows something. This is the state of ignorance. But when ignorance has been destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman, there is nothing but the Self. When to the knower of Brahman everything such as name and form has been merged in the Self and has thus become the Self, then what object to be smelt should one smell, who should smell, and through what instrument? Similarly what should one see and hear? Everywhere an action depends on certain factors; hence when these are absent, the action cannot take place; and in the absence of an action there can be no result. Therefore so long as there is ignorance, the operation of actions, their factors and their results can take place, but not in the case of a knower of Brahman. For to him everything is the Self, and there are no factors or results of actions apart from It. Nor can the universe, being an unreality, be the Self of anybody. Therefore it is ignorance that conjures up the idea of the ncn-Self; strictly speaking, there is nothing but the Self. Therefore when one truly realises the unity of the Self, there cannot be any consciousness of actions, their factors and their results. Hence, because of contradiction, there is an utter absence of actions and their means for the knower of Brahman. The words ‘what’ and ‘through what’ are meant as a fling, and suggest the sheer impossibility of the other factors of an action also; for there cannot possibly be any factors such as the instrument. The idea is that no one by any means can smell anything in any manner. Even in the state of ignorance, when one sees something, through what instrument should one know That owing to which all this is known? For that instrument of knowledge itself falls under the category of objects. The knower may desire to know not about itself, but about objects. As fire does not burn itself, so the self does not know itself, and the knower can have no knowledge of a thing that is not its object. Therefore through what instrument should one know the knower owing to which this universe is known, and who else should know it? And when to the knower of Brahman who has discriminated the Real from the unreal there remains only the subject, absolute and one without a second, through what instrument, O Maitreyī, should one know that Knower? -translation by Swami Madhvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.4.14)

Citation 1.1.4: From  शारीरकमीमांससूत्र  / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (# 4.1.3)

Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  शारीरकमीमांससूत्र  / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)   as denoted below:

Citation 4  in the   original post of  Ramesam Vemuri

प्राक्प्रबोधात् संसारित्वाभ्युपगमात् , तद्विषयत्वाच्च प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहारस्य  ॥ “ For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception are confined within that state only. ”  (Trans: Swami Gambhirananda)”.

   I n order to holistically analyze the above claim, let us here too, as in the previous case, begin our analysis from the  मूलसूत्र   (mūlasūtra – original aphorism)   relating to the above citation.  श्री बादरायण महऋषि  (śrī bādarāyaṇa mahaṛṣi)  who is its revered  सूत्रकार  (sūtrakāra - aphorist)  declares thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
आत्मत्वोपासनाधिकरणम्।।	ātmatvōpāsanādhikaraṇam।।	But the upaniṣhads acknowledge Brahman as the Self and cause It to be  so understood. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र (śārīraka brahmasūtra) (4.1.3)

       Now let us look a closer look at the specific portions from the  शारीरकमीमांससूत्र  / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य   (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)  that are directly related to the citation in question. The commentarial extract is given here.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यः शास्त्रोक्तविशेषणः परमात्मा स किम् अहमिति ग्रहीतव्यः किं वा मदन्य इति एतद्विचारयति। कथं पुनरात्मशब्दे प्रत्यगात्मविषये श्रूयमाणे संशय इति उच्यते अयमात्मशब्दो मुख्यः शक्यतेऽभ्युपगन्तुम् सति जीवेश्वरयोरभेदसंभवे इतरथा तु गौणोऽयमभ्युपगन्तव्यः इति मन्यते। किं तावत्प्राप्तम् न अहमिति ग्राह्यः न हि अपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणो विपरीतगुणत्वेन शक्यते ग्रहीतुम् विपरीतगुणो वा अपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणत्वेन अपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणश्च परमेश्वरः तद्विपरीतगुणस्तु शारीरः ईश्वरस्य च संसार्यात्मत्वे ईश्वराभावप्रसङ्गः ततः शास्त्रानर्थक्यम् संसारिणोऽपि ईश्वरात्मत्वे अधिकार्यभावाच्छास्त्रानर्थक्यमेव प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधश्च। अन्यत्वेऽपि तादात्म्यदर्शनं शास्त्रात् कर्तव्यम् प्रतिमादिष्विव विष्ण्वादिदर्शनम् इति चेत् काममेवं भवतु न तु संसारिणो मुख्य आत्मा ईश्वर इत्येतत् नः प्रापयितव्यम्।। एवं प्राप्ते ब्रूमः आत्मेत्येव परमेश्वरः प्रतिपत्तव्यः। तथा हि परमेश्वरप्रक्रियायां जाबाला आत्मत्वेनैव एतमुपगच्छन्ति त्वं वा अहमस्मि भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि देवते इति तथा अन्येऽपि अहं ब्रह्मास्मि इत्येवमादय आत्मत्वोपगमा द्रष्टव्याः। ग्राहयन्ति च आत्मत्वेनैव ईश्वरं वेदान्तवाक्यानि एष त आत्मा सर्वान्तरः एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः तत्सत्यं स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि इत्येवमादीनि। यदुक्तम् प्रतीकदर्शनमिदं विष्णुप्रतिमान्यायेन भविष्यतीति तदयुक्तम् गौणत्वप्रसङ्गात् वाक्यवैरूप्याच्च यत्र हि प्रतीकदृष्टिरभिप्रेयते सकृदेव तत्र वचनं भवति यथा मनो ब्रह्म आदित्यो ब्रह्म इत्यादि इह पुनः त्वम् अहमस्मि अहं च त्वमसीत्याह अतः प्रतीकश्रुतिवैरूप्यात् अभेदप्रतिपत्तिः भेददृष्ट्यपवादाच्च तथा हि अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्तेऽन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति सर्वं तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनः सर्वं वेद इत्येवमाद्या भूयसी श्रुतिः भेददर्शनमपवदति। यत्तूक्तम् न विरुद्धगुणयोरन्योन्यात्मत्वसंभव इति नायं दोषः विरुद्धगुणताया मिथ्यात्वोपपत्तेः। यत्पुनरुक्तम् ईश्वराभावप्रसङ्ग इति तदसत् शास्त्रप्रामाण्यात् अनभ्युपगमाच्च न हि ईश्वरस्य संसार्यात्मत्वं प्रतिपाद्यत इत्यभ्युपगच्छामः किं तर्हि संसारिणः संसारित्वापोहेन ईश्वरात्मत्वं प्रतिपिपादयिषितमिति। एवं च सति अद्वैतेश्वरस्य अपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणता विपरीतगुणता तु इतरस्य मिथ्येति व्यवतिष्ठते। यदप्युक्तम् अधिकार्यभावः प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधश्चेति तदप्यसत् प्राक्प्रबोधात् संसारित्वाभ्युपगमात् तद्विषयत्वाच्च प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहारस्य यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत् इत्यादिना हि प्रबोधे प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावं दर्शयति। प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावे श्रुतेरप्यभावप्रसङ्ग इति चेत् न इष्टत्वात् अत्र पितापिता भवति इत्युपक्रम्य वेदा अवेदाः इति वचनात् इष्यत एव अस्माभिः श्रुतेरप्यभावः प्रबोधे। कस्य पुनरयम् अप्रबोध इति चेत् यस्त्वं पृच्छसि तस्य ते इति वदामः। ननु अहमीश्वर एवोक्तः श्रुत्या यद्येवं प्रतिबुद्धोऽसि नास्ति कस्यचिदप्रबोधः। योऽपि दोषश्चोद्यते कैश्चिदविद्यया किल आत्मनः सद्वितीयत्वात् अद्वैतानुपपत्तिरिति सोऽपि एतेन प्रत्युक्तः। तस्मात् आत्मेत्येव ईश्वरे मनो दधीत।।	yaḥ śāstrōktaviśēṣaṇaḥ paramātmā sa kim ahamiti grahītavyaḥ kiṁ vā madanya iti ētadvicārayati। kathaṁ punarātmaśabdē pratyagātmaviṣayē śrūyamāṇē saṁśaya iti ucyatē ayamātmaśabdō mukhyaḥ śakyatē'bhyupagantum sati jīvēśvarayōrabhēdasaṁbhavē itarathā tu gauṇō'yamabhyupagantavyaḥ iti manyatē। kiṁ tāvatprāptam na ahamiti grāhyaḥ na hi apahatapāpmatvādiguṇō viparītaguṇatvēna śakyatē grahītum viparītaguṇō vā apahatapāpmatvādiguṇatvēna apahatapāpmatvādiguṇaśca paramēśvaraḥ tadviparītaguṇastu śārīraḥ īśvarasya ca saṁsāryātmatvē īśvarābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ tataḥ śāstrānarthakyam saṁsāriṇō'pi īśvarātmatvē adhikāryabhāvācchāstrānarthakyamēva pratyakṣādivirōdhaśca। anyatvē'pi tādātmyadarśanaṁ śāstrāt kartavyam pratimādiṣviva viṣṇvādidarśanam iti cēt kāmamēvaṁ bhavatu na tu saṁsāriṇō mukhya ātmā īśvara ityētat naḥ prāpayitavyam।। ēvaṁ prāptē brūmaḥ ātmētyēva paramēśvaraḥ pratipattavyaḥ। tathā hi paramēśvaraprakriyāyāṁ jābālā ātmatvēnaiva ētamupagacchanti tvaṁ vā ahamasmi bhagavō dēvatē'haṁ vai tvamasi dēvatē iti tathā anyē'pi ahaṁ brahmāsmi ityēvamādaya ātmatvōpagamā draṣṭavyāḥ। grāhayanti ca ātmatvēnaiva īśvaraṁ vēdāntavākyāni ēṣa ta ātmā sarvāntaraḥ ēṣa ta ātmāntaryāmyamr̥taḥ tatsatyaṁ sa ātmā tattvamasi ityēvamādīni। yaduktam pratīkadarśanamidaṁ viṣṇupratimānyāyēna bhaviṣyatīti tadayuktam gauṇatvaprasaṅgāt vākyavairūpyācca yatra hi pratīkadr̥ṣṭirabhiprēyatē sakr̥dēva tatra vacanaṁ bhavati yathā manō brahma ādityō brahma ityādi iha punaḥ tvam ahamasmi ahaṁ ca tvamasītyāha ataḥ pratīkaśrutivairūpyāt abhēdapratipattiḥ bhēdadr̥ṣṭyapavādācca tathā hi atha yō'nyāṁ dēvatāmupāstē'nyō'sāvanyō'hamasmīti na sa vēda mr̥tyōḥ sa mr̥tyumāpnōti ya iha nānēva paśyati sarvaṁ taṁ parādādyō'nyatrātmanaḥ sarvaṁ vēda ityēvamādyā bhūyasī śrutiḥ bhēdadarśanamapavadati। yattūktam na viruddhaguṇayōranyōnyātmatvasaṁbhava iti nāyaṁ dōṣaḥ viruddhaguṇatāyā mithyātvōpapattēḥ। yatpunaruktam īśvarābhāvaprasaṅga iti tadasat śāstraprāmāṇyāt anabhyupagamācca na hi īśvarasya saṁsāryātmatvaṁ pratipādyata ityabhyupagacchāmaḥ kiṁ tarhi saṁsāriṇaḥ saṁsāritvāpōhēna īśvarātmatvaṁ pratipipādayiṣitamiti। ēvaṁ ca sati advaitēśvarasya apahatapāpmatvādiguṇatā viparītaguṇatā tu itarasya mithyēti vyavatiṣṭhatē। yadapyuktam adhikāryabhāvaḥ pratyakṣādivirōdhaścēti tadapyasat prākprabōdhāt saṁsāritvābhyupagamāt tadviṣayatvācca pratyakṣādivyavahārasya yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūttatkēna kaṁ paśyēt ityādinā hi prabōdhē pratyakṣādyabhāvaṁ darśayati। pratyakṣādyabhāvē śrutērapyabhāvaprasaṅga iti cēt na iṣṭatvāt atra pitāpitā bhavati ityupakramya vēdā avēdāḥ iti vacanāt iṣyata ēva asmābhiḥ śrutērapyabhāvaḥ prabōdhē। kasya punarayam aprabōdha iti cēt yastvaṁ pr̥cchasi tasya tē iti vadāmaḥ। nanu ahamīśvara ēvōktaḥ śrutyā yadyēvaṁ pratibuddhō'si nāsti kasyacidaprabōdhaḥ। yō'pi dōṣaścōdyatē kaiścidavidyayā kila ātmanaḥ sadvitīyatvāt advaitānupapattiriti sō'pi ētēna pratyuktaḥ। tasmāt ātmētyēva īśvarē manō dadhīta।।	The aphorist discusses whether the supreme Self which is possessed of the characteristics as presented in the scriptures is to be realized as identical with oneself or different from oneself. Opponent: When the word Self is heard of in the Upaniṣads as referring to the innermost Self, why should any such doubt arise? Doubt: The answer is this: This word "Self" can be taken in its primary sense only if the Self and God be non-different; otherwise it has to be understood in a secondary sense. That is how the aphorist thinks. What should be the conclusion then? Opponent: It is to be understood as different from ‘I’ (oneself). For the entity, possessed of such qualities as not being blemished by sin and so on, cannot be understood to be possessed of the opposite qualities; and the entity, possessed of the opposite qualities, cannot be understood to be possessed of the qualities of not being blemished by sin and so on. The entity, possessed of the attributes of being free from sin and so on, is the supreme Lord, while the entity, possessed of the opposite attributes, is the embodied soul. Now, if God becomes identical with the transmigrating soul, God will cease to exist; and as a result, the scriptures will become useless. Similarly, if the transmigrating soul becomes God, there will be none to follow the scriptures, which will certainly become useless. This will also contradict such means of proof as common experience. Objection: Even though there be difference, one has to resort to the idea of identity on the authority of the scriptures, just as one has to think of Viṣṇu in images etc. Opponent: This may well be so if it pleases you; but then you must not lead us to admit that God is the Self of the transmigrating being in the primary sense. To this we (Vedāntins) say that the supreme Lord is of course to be realized as one's Self. Thus, it is that the Jābālas, while speaking of the supreme Lord, present Him as identical with the Self in, "O blessed Deity, I indeed am Thee, and Thou indeed art me, O Deity". Similarly, also the other texts like "I am Brahman" (Bṛ. I.iv.10) are to be understood as postulating the identity of the Self with Brahman. As a matter of fact, the Vedic texts make us understand God as our very Self, as for instance, "This is your Self that is within all" (Bṛ. III.iv.1), "This is the internal Ruler, your own immortal Self" (Bṛ. III.vii.3), "That is Truth, that is the Self, and That thou art" (Ch. VI.viii.7). As for the argument that on the analogy of an image being Viṣṇu, this is only a meditation with the help of an image (which in this case is "I"), that is improper, since that would amount to a figurative interpretation (of the texts about unity). It is also improper because the syntactical forms of the passages are different. Where the intention is that a symbol should have an idea superimposed on it, a sentence occurs only unilaterally, as for instance, "The mind is Brahman" (Ch. III. xviii. 1), "The sun is Brahman" (Ch. III.xix.1). But here the Upaniṣad says, "I am Thee, and Thou art me". Hence identity is to be understood from this kind of texts that are dissimilar to those dealing with symbols. Moreover, the dualistic conception is condemned, as in, "While he who worships another God thinking, 'He is one, and I am another', does not know" (Bṛ. I.iv.10), "He goes from death to death who sees difference as it were in It" (Be. IV. iv. 19), "All ousts one who knows it as different from the Self" (Bi-. IV. v. 7); and there are many other Upaniṣadic texts of this kind which denounce the dualistic conceptions. It was argued that the two things of opposite characteristics cannot be identical with each other. That is nothing damaging as the reasonable position is that the opposition in characteristics is unreal. And it is a false argument that God will cease to be so, because one has to accept scriptural authority and because such a position is not held by us. For we do not admit that the scriptures speak of God Himself as the transmigrating soul. What do you admit then? We hold that the scriptures aim at establishing the identity of the transmigrating soul with God Himself by removing from the soul all vestiges of transmigration. From this point of view it becomes affirmed that God is possessed of the characteristics of being untouched by sins etc., and that the opposite characteristics of the soul are unreal. The criticism is also unfounded that no one will be left over to practise the Vedintic path and that direct perception etc. will be outraged. For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception are confined within that state only, because texts as this, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (Br. II. iv. 14), point out the absence of perception etc. in the state of enlightenment. Opponent: In the absence of perception etc. the Vedas also will cease to exist. Vedāntin: That is no defect, since that position is admitted by us. For according to the texts starting with, "In this state the father is no father" and ending with "The Vedas are no Vedas" (Br. IV. iii. 22), we do admit the absence of the Vedas themselves in the state of enlightenment. Opponent: Who is it then that has this unenlightenment? Vedāntin: We say that it is you yourself who ask thus. Opponent: Is it not stated by the Upanisad that I am God? Vedāntin: If that is so, you are already an enlightened man, and so nobody has unenlightenment. Hereby is also refuted the criticism of some people who say that the Self becomes associated with a second entity owing to the very presence of nescience, so that non-dualism becomes untenable. Hence one should fix one's mind on the Self which is God. translationn by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīraka brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.1.3)

1.2 Critical assessment of the scriptural testimonies provided as commentary to the original post of  Ramesam Vemuri

Interestingly, as part of the discussion threads on the original post, some one had commented that

   

Comment on the Musta Ram on the (above) original post of Ramesam Vemuri

Ramesam Vemuriji, I for one agree with your assessment of Shankaras Advaita Vedanta. And I think from that point of view we will have to bite the bullet and have the courage to say that the Shankara who wrote the Bhashyas on the Prastana Traya WAS NOT A JNANI! I still plan to give a more detailed account, ( and a response to Sri Ramanathaji, ) of who a Jnani is and how He is different from a Jnana Nishta. I hope this will clear up some issues and confusions regarding this topic. Thanks for continuing this important topic for members of this forum trying to understand Shankaras Vedanta correctly.🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

 

   I find this as a very comment claiming that जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) was not the ज्ञानिन् (jñānin – enlightened). To the best of my knowledge, I do not see any orthodox and authentic scriptural testimony justifying this claim – more specifically neither in the प्रस्थानत्रयी शास्त्राणि (prasthānatrayī śāstrāṇi – principle three scriptures) nor in the corresponding शङ्करभाष्यणि (śaṅkarabhāṣyaṇi – shankara’s commentaries).  For example, the noble भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) does discuss ज्ञाननिष्ठ (jñānaniṣṭha – steady wisdom) as part of his श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya), but definitely not in the claimed context of the above comment on the original post.     Before getting into the commentarial explanation, let us first look at the मूलश्लोक (mūlaśloka – original verse) wherein His Holiness भगवान् श्री कृष्णपरमात्मा (bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇaparamātmā)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
भक्त्या मामभिजानाति यावान्यश्चास्मि तत्त्वतः। ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम्।।	bhaktyā māmabhijānāti yāvānyaścāsmi tattvataḥ। tatō māṁ tattvatō jñātvā viśatē tadanantaram।।	Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I am. Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge). -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता(śrīmad bhagavadgītā) (18.55)

    Now let us try to understand what जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) as part of his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above श्लोक (śloka – verse) has got to explain here.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
भक्त्या माम् अभिजानाति यावान् अहम् उपाधिकृतविस्तरभेदः? यश्च अहम् अस्मि विध्वस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदः उत्तमः पुरुषः आकाशकल्पः? तं माम् अद्वैतं चैतन्यमात्रैकरसम् अजरम् अभयम् अनिधनं तत्त्वतः अभिजानाति। ततः माम् एवं तत्त्वतः ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरं मामेव ज्ञानानन्तरम्। नात्र ज्ञानप्रवेशक्रिये भिन्ने विवक्षिते ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम् इति। किं तर्हि फलान्तराभावात् ज्ञानमात्रमेव? क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) इति उक्तत्वात्।। ननु विरुद्धम् इदम् उक्तम् ज्ञानस्य या परा निष्ठा तया माम् अभिजानाति (गीता 18।50) इति। कथं विरुद्धम् इति चेत्? उच्यते -- यदैव यस्मिन् विषये ज्ञानम् उत्पद्यते ज्ञातुः? तदैव तं विषयम् अभिजानाति ज्ञाता इति न ज्ञाननिष्ठां ज्ञानावृत्तिलक्षणाम् अपेक्षते इति अतश्च ज्ञानेन न अभिजानाति? ज्ञानावृत्त्या तु ज्ञाननिष्ठया अभिजानातीति। नैष दोषः ज्ञानस्य स्वात्मोत्पत्तिपरिपाकहेतुयुक्तस्य प्रतिपक्षविहीनस्य यत् आत्मानुभवनिश्चयावसानत्वं तस्य निष्ठाशब्दाभिलापात्। शास्त्राचार्योपदेशेन ज्ञानोत्पत्तिहेतुं सहकारिकारणं बुद्धिविशुद्धत्वादि अमानित्वादिगुणं च अपेक्ष्य जनितस्य क्षेत्रज्ञपरमात्मैकत्वज्ञानस्य कर्तृत्वादिकारकभेदबुद्धिनिबन्धनसर्वकर्मसंन्याससहितस्य स्वात्मानुभवनिश्चयरूपेण यत् अवस्थानम्? सा परा ज्ञाननिष्ठा इति उच्यते। सा इयं ज्ञाननिष्ठा आर्तादिभक्तित्रयापेक्षया परा चतुर्थी भक्तिरिति उक्ता। तया परया भक्त्या भगवन्तं तत्त्वतः अभिजानाति? यदनन्तरमेव ईश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञभेदबुद्धिः अशेषतः निवर्तते। अतः ज्ञाननिष्ठालक्षणतया भक्त्या माम् अभिजानातीति वचनं न विरुध्यते। अत्र च सर्वं निवृत्तिविधायि शास्त्रं वेदान्तेतिहासपुराणस्मृतिलक्षणं न्यायप्रसिद्धम् अर्थवत् भवति -- विदित्वा৷৷৷৷ व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति (बृह0 उ0 3।5।1) तस्मान्न्यासमेषां तपसामतिरिक्तमाहुः (ना0 उ0 2।79) न्यास एवात्यरेचयत् (ना0 उ0 2।78) इति। संन्यासः कर्मणां न्यासः वेदानिमं च लोकममुं च परित्यज्य (आप0 ध0 1।23।13) त्यज धर्ममधर्मं च ( महा0 शा0 329।40) इत्यादि। इह च प्रदर्शितानि वाक्यानि। न च तेषां वाक्यानाम् आनर्थक्यं युक्तम् न च अर्थवादत्वम् स्वप्रकरणस्थत्वात्? प्रत्यगात्माविक्रियस्वरूपनिष्ठत्वाच्च मोक्षस्य। न हि पूर्वसमुद्रं जिगिमिषोः प्रातिलोम्येन प्रत्यक्समुद्रजिगमिषुणा समानमार्गत्वं संभवति। प्रत्यगात्मविषयप्रत्ययसंतानकरणाभिनिवेशश्च ज्ञाननिष्ठा सा च प्रत्यक्समुद्रगमनवत् कर्मणा सहभावित्वेन विरुध्यते। पर्वतसर्षपयोरिव अन्तरवान् विरोधः प्रमाणविदां निश्चितः। तस्मात् सर्वकर्मसंन्यासेनैव ज्ञाननिष्ठा कार्या इति सिद्धम्।।स्वकर्मणा भगवतः अभ्यर्चनभक्तियोगस्य सिद्धिप्राप्तिः फलं ज्ञाननिष्ठायोग्यता? यन्निमित्ता ज्ञाननिष्ठा मोक्षफलावसाना सः भगवद्भक्तियोगः अधुना स्तूयते शास्त्रार्थोपसंहारप्रकरणे शास्त्रार्थनिश्चयदार्ढ्याय --	bhaktyā mām abhijānāti yāvān aham upādhikr̥tavistarabhēdaḥ? yaśca aham asmi vidhvastasarvōpādhibhēdaḥ uttamaḥ puruṣaḥ ākāśakalpaḥ? taṁ mām advaitaṁ caitanyamātraikarasam ajaram abhayam anidhanaṁ tattvataḥ abhijānāti। tataḥ mām ēvaṁ tattvataḥ jñātvā viśatē tadanantaraṁ māmēva jñānānantaram। nātra jñānapravēśakriyē bhinnē vivakṣitē jñātvā viśatē tadanantaram iti। kiṁ tarhi phalāntarābhāvāt jñānamātramēva? kṣētrajñaṁ cāpi māṁ viddhi (gītā 13।2) iti uktatvāt।। nanu viruddham idam uktam jñānasya yā parā niṣṭhā tayā mām abhijānāti (gītā 18।50) iti। kathaṁ viruddham iti cēt? ucyatē -- yadaiva yasmin viṣayē jñānam utpadyatē jñātuḥ? tadaiva taṁ viṣayam abhijānāti jñātā iti na jñānaniṣṭhāṁ jñānāvr̥ttilakṣaṇām apēkṣatē iti ataśca jñānēna na abhijānāti? jñānāvr̥ttyā tu jñānaniṣṭhayā abhijānātīti। naiṣa dōṣaḥ jñānasya svātmōtpattiparipākahētuyuktasya pratipakṣavihīnasya yat ātmānubhavaniścayāvasānatvaṁ tasya niṣṭhāśabdābhilāpāt। śāstrācāryōpadēśēna jñānōtpattihētuṁ sahakārikāraṇaṁ buddhiviśuddhatvādi amānitvādiguṇaṁ ca apēkṣya janitasya kṣētrajñaparamātmaikatvajñānasya kartr̥tvādikārakabhēdabuddhinibandhanasarvakarmasaṁnyāsasahitasya svātmānubhavaniścayarūpēṇa yat avasthānam? sā parā jñānaniṣṭhā iti ucyatē। sā iyaṁ jñānaniṣṭhā ārtādibhaktitrayāpēkṣayā parā caturthī bhaktiriti uktā। tayā parayā bhaktyā bhagavantaṁ tattvataḥ abhijānāti? yadanantaramēva īśvarakṣētrajñabhēdabuddhiḥ aśēṣataḥ nivartatē। ataḥ jñānaniṣṭhālakṣaṇatayā bhaktyā mām abhijānātīti vacanaṁ na virudhyatē। atra ca sarvaṁ nivr̥ttividhāyi śāstraṁ vēdāntētihāsapurāṇasmr̥tilakṣaṇaṁ nyāyaprasiddham arthavat bhavati -- viditvā৷৷৷৷ vyutthāyātha bhikṣācaryaṁ caranti (br̥ha0 u0 3।5।1) tasmānnyāsamēṣāṁ tapasāmatiriktamāhuḥ (nā0 u0 2।79) nyāsa ēvātyarēcayat (nā0 u0 2।78) iti। saṁnyāsaḥ karmaṇāṁ nyāsaḥ vēdānimaṁ ca lōkamamuṁ ca parityajya (āpa0 dha0 1।23।13) tyaja dharmamadharmaṁ ca ( mahā0 śā0 329।40) ityādi। iha ca pradarśitāni vākyāni। na ca tēṣāṁ vākyānām ānarthakyaṁ yuktam na ca arthavādatvam svaprakaraṇasthatvāt? pratyagātmāvikriyasvarūpaniṣṭhatvācca mōkṣasya। na hi pūrvasamudraṁ jigimiṣōḥ prātilōmyēna pratyaksamudrajigamiṣuṇā samānamārgatvaṁ saṁbhavati। pratyagātmaviṣayapratyayasaṁtānakaraṇābhinivēśaśca jñānaniṣṭhā sā ca pratyaksamudragamanavat karmaṇā sahabhāvitvēna virudhyatē। parvatasarṣapayōriva antaravān virōdhaḥ pramāṇavidāṁ niścitaḥ। tasmāt sarvakarmasaṁnyāsēnaiva jñānaniṣṭhā kāryā iti siddham।।svakarmaṇā bhagavataḥ abhyarcanabhaktiyōgasya siddhiprāptiḥ phalaṁ jñānaniṣṭhāyōgyatā? yannimittā jñānaniṣṭhā mōkṣaphalāvasānā saḥ bhagavadbhaktiyōgaḥ adhunā stūyatē śāstrārthōpasaṁhāraprakaraṇē śāstrārthaniścayadārḍhyāya	Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as Knowledge; abhijānāti, he knows; mam, Me; tattvataḥ, in reality; as to yavan, what I am, with the extensive differences created by limiting adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions create by the limiting adjuncts are destroyed-Me who am the supreme Person comparable to space [In points of all-pervasiveness and non-attachment.] and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and deathless. Tataḥ, then; jñatva, having known; mam, Me, thus; tattvataḥ, in truth; viśate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately after that (Knowledge). Here, by saying, 'having known, he enters without delay', it is not meant that the acts of 'knowing' and 'entering immediately after' are different. What then? What is meant is the absolute Knowledge itself that has to no other result, [In place of phalāntarabhāva-jñāna-mātram eva, Ast. reads 'phalāntarābhāvāt jñānamātramēva, absolute Knowledge itself, since there is no other result'.-Tr.] for it has been said, 'And understand Me to be the "Knower of the field", (13.2). Opponent: Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through that which is the supreme steadliness (niṣṭha) in Knowledge? Vedāntin: If it be asked, how it is contradictory? Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any Knowledge of something arises in a knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object. Hence, he does not depend on steadfastness in Knowledge which consists in the repetition of the act of knowing. And therefore, it is contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge, but through steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act of knowing. Vedāntin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of Knowledge-which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its unfoldment and maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the conviction that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by the word niṣṭha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, and which remains associated with the renunciation of all actions that arise from the perception of the distinction among their accessories such as agent etc., and which unfolds from the instruction of the scriptures and teachers, depending on purity of the intellect etc. and humility etc. which are the auxiliary causes of the origin and maturity of Knowledge-continues in the form of the conviction that one's own Self has been realized, then that continuance is called the supreme steadfastness (niṣṭha) in Knowledge. This steadfastness in Knowledge that is such has been spoken of as the highest, the fourth kind of devotion in relation to the three other devotions viz of the afflicted, etc. (cf. 7.16). Through that highest devotion one realizes the Lord in truth. Immediately after that the idea of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the field vanishes totally. There-fore the statement, 'one knows Me through devotion in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge', is not contradictory. And, in this sense, all the scriptures-consisting of Vedānta (Upaniṣads etc.), History, Mythology and Smṛtis-, as for instance, 'Knowing (this very Self the Brahmanas) renounce৷৷.and lead a mendicant's life' (Br. 3.5.1), 'Therefore they speak of monasticism as excellent among these austerities' (Ma. Na. 24.1), 'Monasticism verily became supreme' (ibid. 21.2), which enjoin renunciation become meaningful. Thus, monasticism means renunciation of rites and duties. There are also the texts, 'Having renounced the Vedas as well as this world and the next' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.9.13), and 'Give up religion and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40; 331.44), etc. And here (in the Gita) also various relevant) passages have been pointed out. In is not proper that those texts should be meaningless. Nor are they merely eulogistic, since they occur in their own contexts. Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the changeless real nature of the indwelling Self. Indeed, it is not possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course! And steadfastness in Knowledge consists in being totally absorbed in maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self. And that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between a mountain and a mustard seed! Therefore, it is established that one should have recourse to steadfastness in Knowledge only, by relinquishing all rites and duties. The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a view to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the Scripture): -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (18.55)

Interestingly, for some reason, which I am not able to relate it to the current context, the above comment is also trying to differentiate between a ज्ञानिन् (jñānin - enlightened) and a ज्ञाननिष्ठ (jñānaniṣṭha – steady wisdom).  It is obvious that there cannot be a ज्ञाननिष्ठ (jñānaniṣṭha – steady wisdom) without ज्ञानिन् (jñānin – enlightened). ब्रह्मज्ञान (brahmajñāna – spiritual wisdom) is a continuum. Once a ब्रह्मज्ञानिन् (brahma jñānin – spiritually enlightened one) , he is always a ब्रह्मज्ञानिन् (brahma jñānin – spiritually enlightened one) and that is what ज्ञाननिष्ठ (jñānaniṣṭha – steady wisdom) is all about. Hence it is correct to say “ Shankara who wrote the Bhashyas on the Prastana Traya WAS NOT A JNANI!”.

In fact, let us hear this from the horse’s mouth itself. जगत्गुरु श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (jagatguru śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda), as part his  famous शारीरकमीमांससूत्र / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) explains this.  But even before getting into his commentarial explanation, let us first look at the मूलसूत्र (mūlasūtra – original aphorism) wherein the सूत्रकार (sūtrakāra - aphorist) declares thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
एवं मुक्तिफलानियमस्तदवस्थावधृतेस्तदवस्थावधृतेः।।	ēvaṁ muktiphalāniyamastadavasthāvadhr̥tēstadavasthāvadhr̥tēḥ।।	There is no rule of this kind with regard to the result called liberation, because that state has been definitely determined (to be the same), because that state has been definitely determined (to be the same). -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र (śārīraka brahmasūtra) (3.4.52)

Now let us look a closer look at the specific portions from the शारीरकमीमांससूत्र / ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīrakamīmāṃsasūtra brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) that are directly related to the citation in question. The commentarial extract is given here. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यथा मुमुक्षोर्विद्यासाधनावलम्बिनः साधनवीर्यविशेषाद्विद्यालक्षणे फले ऐहिकामुष्मिकफलत्वकृतो विशेषप्रतिनियमो दृष्टः एवं मुक्तिलक्षणेऽपि उत्कर्षापकर्षकृतः कश्चिद्विशेषप्रतिनियमः स्यात् इत्याशङ्क्य आह मुक्तिफलानियम इति। न खलु मुक्तिफले कश्चित् एवंभूतो विशेषप्रतिनियम आशङ्कितव्यः कुतः तदवस्थावधृतेः मुक्त्यवस्था हि सर्ववेदान्तेष्वेकरूपैव अवधार्यते ब्रह्मैव हि मुक्त्यवस्था न च ब्रह्मणोऽनेकाकारयोगोऽस्ति एकलिङ्गत्वावधारणात् अस्थूलमनणु स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति ब्रह्मैवेदममृतं पुरस्तात् इदं सर्वं यदयमात्मा स वा एष महानज आत्माजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयो ब्रह्म यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत् इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः। अपि च विद्यासाधनं स्ववीर्यविशेषात् स्वफल एव विद्यायां कंचिदतिशयमासञ्जयेत् न विद्याफले मुक्तौ तद्धि असाध्यं नित्यसिद्धस्वभावमेव विद्यया अधिगम्यत इत्यसकृदवादिष्म। न च तस्यामप्युत्कर्षनिकर्षात्मकोऽतिशय उपपद्यते निकृष्टाया विद्यात्वाभावात् उत्कृष्टैव हि विद्या भवति तस्मात् तस्यां चिराचिरोत्पत्तिरूपोऽतिशयो भवन् भवेत्। न तु मुक्तौ कश्चित् अतिशयसंभवोऽस्ति। विद्याभेदाभावादपि तत्फलभेदनियमाभावः कर्मफलवत् न हि मुक्तिसाधनभूताया विद्यायाः कर्मणामिव भेदोऽस्ति। सगुणासु तु विद्यासु मनोमयः प्राणशरीरः इत्याद्यासु गुणावापोद्वापवशाद्भेदोपपत्तौ सत्याम् उपपद्यते यथास्वं फलभेदनियमः कर्मफलवत् तथा च लिङ्गदर्शनम् तं यथा यथोपासते तदेव भवति इति नैवं निर्गुणायां विद्यायाम् गुणाभावात् तथा च स्मृतिः न हि गतिरधिकास्ति कस्यचित्सति हि गुणे प्रवदन्त्यतुल्यताम् इति। तदवस्थावधृतेस्तदवस्थावधृतेरिति पदाभ्यासः अध्यायपरिसमाप्तिं द्योतयति।।	yathā mumukṣōrvidyāsādhanāvalambinaḥ sādhanavīryaviśēṣādvidyālakṣaṇē phalē aihikāmuṣmikaphalatvakr̥tō viśēṣapratiniyamō dr̥ṣṭaḥ ēvaṁ muktilakṣaṇē'pi utkarṣāpakarṣakr̥taḥ kaścidviśēṣapratiniyamaḥ syāt ityāśaṅkya āha muktiphalāniyama iti। na khalu muktiphalē kaścit ēvaṁbhūtō viśēṣapratiniyama āśaṅkitavyaḥ kutaḥ tadavasthāvadhr̥tēḥ muktyavasthā hi sarvavēdāntēṣvēkarūpaiva avadhāryatē brahmaiva hi muktyavasthā na ca brahmaṇō'nēkākārayōgō'sti ēkaliṅgatvāvadhāraṇāt asthūlamanaṇu sa ēṣa nēti nētyātmā yatra nānyatpaśyati brahmaivēdamamr̥taṁ purastāt idaṁ sarvaṁ yadayamātmā sa vā ēṣa mahānaja ātmājarō'marō'mr̥tō'bhayō brahma yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūttatkēna kaṁ paśyēt ityādiśrutibhyaḥ। api ca vidyāsādhanaṁ svavīryaviśēṣāt svaphala ēva vidyāyāṁ kaṁcidatiśayamāsañjayēt na vidyāphalē muktau taddhi asādhyaṁ nityasiddhasvabhāvamēva vidyayā adhigamyata ityasakr̥davādiṣma। na ca tasyāmapyutkarṣanikarṣātmakō'tiśaya upapadyatē nikr̥ṣṭāyā vidyātvābhāvāt utkr̥ṣṭaiva hi vidyā bhavati tasmāt tasyāṁ cirācirōtpattirūpō'tiśayō bhavan bhavēt। na tu muktau kaścit atiśayasaṁbhavō'sti। vidyābhēdābhāvādapi tatphalabhēdaniyamābhāvaḥ karmaphalavat na hi muktisādhanabhūtāyā vidyāyāḥ karmaṇāmiva bhēdō'sti। saguṇāsu tu vidyāsu manōmayaḥ prāṇaśarīraḥ ityādyāsu guṇāvāpōdvāpavaśādbhēdōpapattau satyām upapadyatē yathāsvaṁ phalabhēdaniyamaḥ karmaphalavat tathā ca liṅgadarśanam taṁ yathā yathōpāsatē tadēva bhavati iti naivaṁ nirguṇāyāṁ vidyāyām guṇābhāvāt tathā ca smr̥tiḥ na hi gatiradhikāsti kasyacitsati hi guṇē pravadantyatulyatām iti। tadavasthāvadhr̥tēstadavasthāvadhr̥tēriti padābhyāsaḥ adhyāyaparisamāptiṁ dyōtayati।।	With regard to liberation, the result of knowledge, there is no such rule. One must not entertain any misconception of any such rule being applicable with individual variation in the matter of the resulting liberation. Why? "Because the Upaniṣads have definitely ascertained that state (to be the same)". For in all the Upaniṣads, the state of liberation is determined to be uniform in nature, the state of liberation being nothing but Brahman Itself. And Brahman cannot be of many sorts, since its characteristic indication is declared to be uniform by such texts as, "neither gross nor minute" (Br. III. viii. 8), "This Self is that which has been described as 'Not so, not so'" (Br. III. ix. 26), " Where one does not see anything else" (Ch. VII. xxiv. 1), "All that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal" (Mu. II. ii. 11), "and all this are the Self" (Br II. iv. 6), "That great birthless Self is undecaying, immortal, undying, fearless, and Brahman (infinite)" (Br. IV. iv. 25), "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (Br. IV. v. 15). Moreover, in accordance with some peculiar efficacy belonging to the means of knowledge, they may (possibly) impart some excellence to knowledge itself, which is their result; but they cannot do so to liberation which is the result of knowledge. For we said it more than once that liberation cannot be a product of anything, it being realized through knowledge as a fact eternally present in its own right. For the matter of that, there can be no such thing as superiority, constituted by perfection, even in the case of knowledge, since an inferior knowledge is no knowledge, the superior one alone being so. Hence knowledge can possibly have only such a distinction A having arisen late or promptly. But in liberation there can be no superiority. Again, unlike the differences in the results of karma, the result of knowledge can have no difference owing to the absence of any difference in the knowledge itself. For unlike karma, knowledge as the means to liberation has no difference. But so far as the meditations on the qualified Brahman are concerned, as for instance in, "He who is identified with the mind and has the subtle body as His body" (Ch. III. xiv. 2), they can be different, owing to addition or elimination of attributes; and hence there can be a difference among their respective results, even as in the case of the results of karma. In support of this is noticeable an indicatory mark in the text, "The aspirant becomes just as he meditates on Him." Similar also is the Smrti text, "There is no such thing as a higher goal for one realizing the absolute Brahman, for they speak of difference only in cases where qualities obtain". -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: शारीरक ब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śārīraka brahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (3.4.52)

2.  किं ज्ञानिन् मुनि जगत् पश्यति (kiṁ jñānī jagat paśyati –  Does the enlightened sage see the world)?

With the above points, I would next like to deep dive a little more into the  शब्दप्रमाण  (śabdapramāṇa – scriptural reference)  provided as testimonies in the original post, which includes the following citations predominantly from  शङ्कर भाष्याणि  (śaṅkara bhāṣyāṇi – shankara’s commentaries )

Now, I would like to share my 2 cents on another related thread "Does a jnani see the world" in the same FB Group,

Original post by  Michael Chandra Cohen

Does the Jnani see the world ... cont'd <my Sanskrit translation in > From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <advaitin@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:45 AM To: advaitin@googlegroups.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> Subject: [advaitin] Illusion and the world !! praNAms Hare Krishna I always wonder what is the meaning of illusion when it is used to convey outer world is bhrAnti (illusion)? Illusion is that which will be understood as not existent by the means of pramANa or right knowledge. If we take the example of dviteeya Chandra <two moons> or sarpa in rajju <snake in rope>, the second moon is non- existent because it is not seen by a person without cataract (drushti dOsha), a sarpa would not be seen by a person if he does not have a mithyAjnAna <mistaken knowledge> about rajju. And after the dawn of jnAna what is going to be realized that there was / is / never exist sarpa in rajju or there is no dviteeya Chandra whatsoever at any point of time it is only bhrAnti jnAna. But is this jagat <world> like dviteeya Chandra or sarpa?? bhAshyakAra <Shankara> categorically says : jagat IS NOT bhrAnti like sarpa in place of rajju..(vide chAndOgya). And bhAshyakAra himself clarifies : even after samyakjnAna <right knowledge from sruti/guru> if the jnAni sees a goat he would get vrutti <thought/impression> of the goat only like any other normal people. That means jagat would continue to appear even for the Samyak jnAni. But for paramArtha jnAni parichinnatvaM, aparipUrNatvaM <Supreme Jnani who has transcended difference and fullness> about the jagat gets sublated. And he would see jagat as brahman only nothing else. But ajnAni <ignorance> does not see jagat ‘as it is’, he would see jagat as separate from him and for him jagat is abhrahma <abrahman? - not absolute>, aparipUrNa, parichinna <not full, and with division>. So what ajnAni sees with his avidyA drushti is illusory coz. his drushti <vision> is NOT paripUrNa drushti as he is still under the spell of avidyA. This illusory jagat exists only in his intellect but what is there outside as jagat is nothing but ‘vishesha’ darshana <seeing particularity> of that nirvishesha brahman and for this jagat brahman is the abhinna nimittopadAna kAraNa <Distinctionless material & intelligent cause>. In mundaka shruti bhAshyakAra <Mundaka Upanishad Shankara> explains this without any ambiguity : The Jagat in front seen by people through avidyA as a-brahman is indeed the brahman… the whole Jagat is Brahman……. all a-brahman mental apprehension is like the wrong mental cognition of rope as a snake. Brahmaiva uktalakshaNam edam yat purastAt agre abrahmaiva avidyA drushteenAM pratyavabhAsamAnaM. brahmaivedaM vishvaM samasthaM abrahma pratyayaH sarvaH ‘avidyAmAtraH rajjvAmiva sarpa pratyayaH. If we are leaving all these aside and if we continue to argue this jagat is mere mental impression of the conditioned jeeva <individual> then we are definitely deserved to be called as prachanna bouddha-s <crypto Buddhist> in general and vijnAnavAdins <Yogachara Buddhist> in particular. By the way jagat bhrAntitva or its illusory nature and related arguments come from the proponents of jnAni’s avidyAlesha <'remaining avidya' - a doctrine of later Vedanta> and Objective existence of aevidyA (bhAva rUpa avidyA) <a positive ignorance -- also later>!! They comfortably attribute astitva <existence> to the avidyA but not ready to grant any astitva to the jagat which is pratyaksha pramANita, anumAna siddha, Agama pratipAdita <not sure how to translate this last part>…Quite strange indeed 😊

To the above post Michael Chandra Cohen Ji and me, had the following dialogues as comments. 

My comments and discussion there on

Shankar Santhamoorthy: “As long as the world see's the jnāni, the jnani sees the world. No world - no jnāni, no ajnāni..”   Michael Chandra Cohen: “Shankar Santhamoorthy ji ??? the world is an error, a superimposition that no longer exists with jnana. Is this what you mean?” Shankar Santhamoorthy: “Michael Chandra Cohen Ji, what I mean is concepts like jnāni, ajnāni etc...are obviously relative terms, relative to the world...only with reference to the world, one differentiates between a ajnāni like me and a brahmajnāni like our beloved Jagadguru. As long as the world is seen, both jnāni and ajnāni react with each other and the world...they are corporeally manifest (bound to nama, rupa, bhava), grow, act and finally corporeally liberated. Even brahmajnani like Sri Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada had a corporeally born, grew, studied shruti from his corporeal gurus, mastered the same, walked the talk as a Jagadguru writing bhashyas, prakarana granthas, preaching, mentoring direct corporeal disciples including Sureshvaracarya etc...and preached and practiced the advaita to thousands of corporeal souls Pan India, and finally left his corporeal body...now can one say at which point in the life history of Jagadguru, he became a jnani and stopped seeing the world?” Shankar Santhamoorthy: “When he wrote the bhashyas was he a jnani or not?” Michael Chandra Cohen: “Shankar Santhamoorthy The one with a body/mind and individuality who is capable of writing bhasya cannot also be the fulfillment of verses such as: • "That it ·does not' see in that ·state is because, although seeing then It does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see. BrU4.3.23 • This mutual superimposition of the non-Self and the Self (atmānatmanor itaretara adhyāsaṁ) that is called avidya (avidya akhyam) is the basis (puraskṛtya) on which rest all the practical distinctions between means of knowledge and objects of knowledge (sarve pramāṇa prameya)…. Samadhana: This is being explained. (a)When there is no possibility of one who is devoid of identification with ‘I’ and ‘mine’ with regard to the body and sense organs, to become a cognizer, the means of knowledge is inoperative for without (the participation of) the sense organs the means of knowledge such as perception cannot operate. (b)The function of the sense organs is not possible without a basis (body). (c)Nor does one become engaged in activity without attributing the notion ‘I’ to the body. When all these do not combine the Self that is unattached cannot become a cognizer, there is no operation of the means of knowledge. Therefore, the means of knowledge such as perception and the scriptures are meant only for those that remain on the plane of avidya. (adhyasa bhasya) • It is like this. As a man embraced by a woman he loves is oblivious to everything within or without, so this person embraced by the self (Atman) consisting of knowledge is oblivious to everything within or without (BU 4.3.21) • "That it ·does not' see in that ·state is because, although seeing then It does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see. BrU4.3.23 • “'0 good looking one, in the beginning this was Existence alone, One only, without a second.” ChU 6.2.1 • Bhasya: “Vediintin: No. Since the instruction of oneness is given by saying 'Thou art That', there is no scope for the difference between the basis and the thing supported, and similarly, there can be no scope of any vision with regard to oneself, since it has been ascertained in the sixth chapter that Truth is one Existence, without a second; and also in Upani~adic texts like: , ... established in this unperceivable, bodiless ... Brahman' (Tai. II.7.1); 'His form does not exist within the range of vision' (Ka.11.3.9); 'Through what, 0 Maitreyi, should one know the knower?' (Br. 11.4.14). … The idea is that this (finitude) exists during the period of ignorance. It is like a thing seen in a dream, which exists only during that period, before waking. Chbh7.24.1” • “He goes from death to death who sees any difference here.” KaU 2.1.10 • And this name and form are merely imagined in the Absolute, like day and night in the sun. From the standpoint of the highest truth, they do not exist.”Tait Bh 2.8 • Neither from itself nor from something else is anything born. Neither an existent nor a non-existent … is born. GK 4.22 • “Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It.” Br 4.4.19 • … But there is no duality there GK4.75” Shankar Santhamoorthy: Michael Chandra Cohen Ji what makes you say "The one with a body/mind and individuality who is capable of writing bhasya cannot also be the fulfillment of verses such as...." Shankar Santhamoorthy: Can you please directly share your perspective reply to the question "When he wrote the bhashyas was he a jnani or not?" Michael Chandra Cohen: Shankar Santhamoorthy ji The support for absence of individuality after the error of avidya is dispelled are sruti and bhasya statements such as: • And this name and form are merely imagined in the Absolute, like day and night in the sun. From the standpoint of the highest truth, they do not exist.”Tait Bh 2.8 • But in a context where the unconditioned Self is one, there can neither be knowing by oneself not by another. Kebh2.4 • "For when there is duality, as it were, then one… knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one …know and through what? "Br2.4.14 Not so, for that is possible before enlightenment like the behaviour in a dream before awakening. The scripture also speaks of the use of perception etc. in the case of the unenlightened man in the text, "Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something" (Br. II. iv. 14, IV. v. 15); and then it shows the absence of this in the case of an enlightened man, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?" (ibid) etc. BSbh4.3.14

2.1 Critical assessment of the scriptural testimonies provided in the original post  of   Michael Chandra Cohen  

     With the above points, I would next like to deep dive a little more into the  शब्दप्रमाण  (śabdapramāṇa – scriptural reference)  provided as testimonies in the original post, which includes the following citations predominantly from the  प्रस्थानत्रयी (prasthānatrayī – principle triad) &   शङ्कर भाष्याणि  (śaṅkara bhāṣyāṇi – shankara’s commentaries )

#	Primary Reference Text	Referenced verse index
2.1	श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)	4.3.23
2.2	श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)	1.1.0 अध्यास्यभाष्य (adhyāsyabhāṣya)
2.3	श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)	4.3.21
2.4	श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad)	6.2.1
2.5	श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)	7.24.1
2.6	श्रीमद् कठोपनिषद् (śrīmad kaṭhopaniṣad)	2.1.10
2.7	श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)	2.8
2.8	श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)	4.4.19
2.9	श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā)	4.75
2.10	श्रीमद् केनोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad kenopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)	2.4
11	श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)	2.4.14
12	श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)	4.3.14

We shall now take a deeper look into each of these references and objectively analyse whether the  revered  भाष्यकार  (bhāṣyakāra - commentator)  actually intends to convey the same meaning as interpreted in the original post. In other words, let us critically evaluate if these scriptures endorse that “ the world appears only for the ignorant”  or not. 

Citation 2.1.1: From  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्   (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)   (# 4.3.23)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.1  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

That it ·does not' see in that ·state is because, although seeing then It does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.

As we must be knowing that the तृतीया ब्राह्मण चतुर्थ अध्यायस्य बृहदारण्यकोपनिषदि (tṛtīyā brāhmaṇa caturtha adhyāyasya bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadi – third conclave of fourth chapter in the Brhadharanyaka Upanishad) deals with ज्योतिस् ब्राह्मण (jyotis brāhmaṇa – divine light) explained by श्री याज्ञवल्क्य महऋषि (śrī yājñavalkya mahaṛṣi) narrated as a conversational dialogue between him and श्री जनक महऋषि (śrī janaka mahaṛṣi) . And therein the मन्त्र (mantra - mantra) #23 cited above is a continuation of मन्त्र (mantra - mantra) #21 dealing with   आत्मकार्य अवस्था सुषुप्तेः (ātmakārya avasthā suṣupteḥ - effectual soul state of deep sleep) which is characterized by विषयवस्तुभेदविहीनः ( viṣayavastubh ē davih ī na ḥ - subject-object discrimination ) . Here is the actual मन्त्र (mantra - mantra)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यद्वै तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तन्न पश्यति, न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वान् । न तु तद्द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तं यत्पश्येत् ॥	yadvai tanna paśyati paśyanvai tanna paśyati, na hi draṣṭurdr̥ṣṭērviparilōpō vidyatē'vināśitvān । na tu taddvitīyamasti tatō'nyadvibhaktaṁ yatpaśyēt ॥	That it does not see in that state is because, although seeing then, it does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see. -translation by Swami Madhvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (4.3.23)

Let us next look at the explanation given by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) in his famous भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ) on the above quoted श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
स्त्रीपुंसयोरिवैकत्वान्न पश्यतीत्युक्तं स्वयञ्ज्योतिरिति च / स्वयञ्ज्योतिरिति च / स्वञ्ज्योतिष्ट्वं नाम चैतन्यात्मस्वभावता / यदि ह्यग्न्युष्णत्वादिवच्चैतन्यात्मस्वभाव आत्मा स कथमेकत्वे ऽपि हि स्वभावं जह्यान्न जानीयात् / अथ न जहाति कथमिह सुषुप्ते न पश्यति / विप्रतिषिद्धमेतच्चैतन्यमात्मस्वभावो न जानाति चेति / न विप्रतिषिद्धमुभयमप्येतदुपपद्यत एव / कथम्यद्वै सुषुप्ते तन्न पश्यति पश्यन्वै तत्तत्र पश्यन्नेव न पश्यति / यत्तत्र सुषुप्ते न पश्यतीति जानीषे तन्न तथा गृह्णीयाः / कस्मात् / पश्यन्वै भवति तत्र / नन्वानं न पश्यतीति सुषुप्ते जानीमे यतो न चक्षुर्वा मनो वा दर्शने करणं व्यापृतमस्ति / व्यापृतेषु हि दर्शनश्रवणादिषु पश्यतीति व्यवहारो भवति शृणोतीति वा / न च व्यापृतानि करणानि पश्यामः / तस्मान्न पश्यत्येवायम् / न हि / किं तर्हि पश्यन्नेव भवति / कथम् / न हि यस्माद्द्रष्टुर्दृष्टकर्तुर्या दृष्टिस्तस्या दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विनाशः / स न विद्यते / यथाग्नेरौष्ण्यं हि सा / ननु विप्रतिषिद्धमिदमभिधीयते द्रष्टुः सा दृष्टिर्न विपरिलुप्यत इत चाशक्यं वक्तुम् / ननु न विपरिलुप्यत इति वचनादविनाशिनी स्यात् / न / वनचस्य ज्ञापकत्वात् / नहि न्यायप्राप्तो विनाशः कृतकस्य वचनशतेनापि वारयितुं शक्यते / वचनस्य ज्ञापकत्वात् / नहि न्यायप्राप्तो विनाशः / कृतकस्य वचनशतेनापु वारयितुं शक्यते / वचनस्य यथाप्राप्तार्थज्ञापकत्वात् / नैष दोषः / आदित्यादिप्रकाशकत्ववद्दर्शनोपपत्तेः / यथाऽदित्यादयो नित्यप्रकाशस्वभावा एव सन्तः स्वाभाविकेन नित्येनैव प्रकाशेन प्रकाशयन्ति / न ह्यप्रकाशात्मानः सन्तः प्रकाशं कुर्वन्तः प्रकाशयन्तीत्युच्यन्ते / किं तर्हि स्वभावेनैव नित्येन प्रकाशेन / तथायमप्यात्माविपरिलुप्तस्वभावया दृष्ट्या नित्यया द्रष्टेत्युच्यन्ते / गौणं तर्हि द्रष्टुत्वम् / नैवमेव मुख्यत्वोपपत्तेः यदि ह्यन्यथाप्यात्मनो द्रष्टुत्वं दृष्टं तदास्य द्रष्टुत्वस्य गौणत्वं न त्वात्मनो ऽन्यो दर्शनप्रकारो ऽस्ति तदेवमेव मुख्यं द्रष्टुत्वमुपपद्यते नान्यथा / यथाऽदित्यादीनां प्रकाशयितृत्वं नित्येनैव स्वभाविकेनाक्रियमाणेन प्रकाशकेन तदेव च प्रकाशयितृत्वं मुख्यं प्रकाशयितृत्वान्तरानुपपत्तेः / तस्मान्न द्रष्टुर्दृष्टिर्विपरिलुप्यत इत न विप्रतिषेधगन्धो ऽप्यस्ति / नन्वनित्यक्रियाकर्तृविषय एव तृच्प्रत्ययान्तस्य शब्दस्य प्रयोगो दृष्टो यथा छेत्ता भेत्ता गन्तेति तथा द्रष्टेत्यत्रापीति चेत् / न / प्रकाशयितेति दृष्टत्वात् / भवतु प्रकाशकेष्वन्यथासंभवान्न त्वात्मनीति चेत् / न, दृष्ट्यविपरिलोपश्रुतेः / पश्यामि न पश्यामीत्यनुभवदर्शनान्नेति चेत् / न / करणव्यापारविशेषापेक्षत्वात् / उद्धृतचक्षुषां च स्वप्न् आत्मदृष्टेरविपरुलोपदर्शनात् / तस्मादविपुलुप्तस्वभावैवाऽत्मनो दृष्टः / अतस्याविपरिलुप्तया दृष्ट्या स्वयञ्ज्योतिःस्वभावया पश्यन्नेव भवति सुषुप्ते / कथं तर्हि न पश्यतीति / उच्यते / न तु तदस्ति किं तत् / द्वितीयं विषयभूतम् / किंवशिष्टम् / ततो द्रष्चिरन्यदन्यत्वेन विभक्तं यत्पश्येद्यदुपलभेत यद्धि तद्विशेषदर्शनकारणमन्तःकरणं चक्षू रूपं च तदविद्ययान्यत्वेन प्रत्युपस्थापितमासीत् / तदेतस्मिन्काल एकीभुतम् / आत्मनः परेण परिष्वङ्गात् / द्रष्टुर्हि परिच्छिन्नस्यविशेषदर्शनाय करणमन्यत्वेन व्यतिष्ठते / अयं तु स्वेन सर्वात्मना संपिष्वक्तः स्वेन परेण प्राज्ञेनाऽत्मना प्रिययेव पुरुषः / तेन न पृथक्त्वेन व्यवस्थितानि करणानि विषयाश्च /तदभावाद्विशेषदर्शनं नास्ति / करणादिकृतं हि तन्नाऽत्मकृतम् /आत्मकृतमिव प्रत्यवभासते /तस्मात्तकृतेयं भ्रान्तिरात्मनो दृष्टिः परिलुप्यतच इति //	strīpuṃsayorivaikatvānna paśyatītyuktaṃ svayañjyotiriti ca / svayañjyotiriti ca / svañjyotiṣṭvaṃ nāma caitanyātmasvabhāvatā / yadi hyagnyuṣṇatvādivaccaitanyātmasvabhāva ātmā sa kathamekatve 'pi hi svabhāvaṃ jahyānna jānīyāt / atha na jahāti kathamiha suṣupte na paśyati / vipratiṣiddhametaccaitanyamātmasvabhāvo na jānāti ceti / na vipratiṣiddhamubhayamapyetadupapadyata eva / katham-yadvai suṣupte tanna paśyati paśyanvai tattatra paśyanneva na paśyati / yattatra suṣupte na paśyatīti jānīṣe tanna tathā gṛhṇīyāḥ / kasmāt / paśyanvai bhavati tatra / nanvānaṃ na paśyatīti suṣupte jānīme yato na cakṣurvā mano vā darśane karaṇaṃ vyāpṛtamasti / vyāpṛteṣu hi darśanaśravaṇādiṣu paśyatīti vyavahāro bhavati śṛṇotīti vā / na ca vyāpṛtāni karaṇāni paśyāmaḥ / tasmānna paśyatyevāyam / na hi / kiṃ tarhi paśyanneva bhavati / katham / na hi yasmāddraṣṭurdṛṣṭakarturyā dṛṣṭistasyā dṛṣṭerviparilopo vināśaḥ / sa na vidyate / yathāgnerauṣṇyaṃ hi sā / nanu vipratiṣiddhamidamabhidhīyate draṣṭuḥ sā dṛṣṭirna viparilupyata ita cāśakyaṃ vaktum / nanu na viparilupyata iti vacanādavināśinī syāt / na / vanacasya jñāpakatvāt / nahi nyāyaprāpto vināśaḥ kṛtakasya vacanaśatenāpi vārayituṃ śakyate / vacanasya jñāpakatvāt / nahi nyāyaprāpto vināśaḥ / kṛtakasya vacanaśatenāpu vārayituṃ śakyate / vacanasya yathāprāptārthajñāpakatvāt / naiṣa doṣaḥ / ādityādiprakāśakatvavaddarśanopapatteḥ / yathā'dityādayo nityaprakāśasvabhāvā eva santaḥ svābhāvikena nityenaiva prakāśena prakāśayanti / na hyaprakāśātmānaḥ santaḥ prakāśaṃ kurvantaḥ prakāśayantītyucyante / kiṃ tarhi svabhāvenaiva nityena prakāśena / tathāyamapyātmāvipariluptasvabhāvayā dṛṣṭyā nityayā draṣṭetyucyante / gauṇaṃ tarhi draṣṭutvam / naivameva mukhyatvopapatteḥ yadi hyanyathāpyātmano draṣṭutvaṃ dṛṣṭaṃ tadāsya draṣṭutvasya gauṇatvaṃ na tvātmano 'nyo darśanaprakāro 'sti tadevameva mukhyaṃ draṣṭutvamupapadyate nānyathā / yathā'dityādīnāṃ prakāśayitṛtvaṃ nityenaiva svabhāvikenākriyamāṇena prakāśakena tadeva ca prakāśayitṛtvaṃ mukhyaṃ prakāśayitṛtvāntarānupapatteḥ / tasmānna draṣṭurdṛṣṭirviparilupyata ita na vipratiṣedhagandho 'pyasti / nanvanityakriyākartṛviṣaya eva tṛcpratyayāntasya śabdasya prayogo dṛṣṭo yathā chettā bhettā ganteti tathā draṣṭetyatrāpīti cet / na / prakāśayiteti dṛṣṭatvāt / bhavatu prakāśakeṣvanyathāsaṃbhavānna tvātmanīti cet / na, dṛṣṭyaviparilopaśruteḥ / paśyāmi na paśyāmītyanubhavadarśanānneti cet / na / karaṇavyāpāraviśeṣāpekṣatvāt / uddhṛtacakṣuṣāṃ ca svapn ātmadṛṣṭeraviparulopadarśanāt / tasmādavipuluptasvabhāvaivā'tmano dṛṣṭaḥ / atasyāvipariluptayā dṛṣṭyā svayañjyotiḥsvabhāvayā paśyanneva bhavati suṣupte / kathaṃ tarhi na paśyatīti / ucyate / na tu tadasti kiṃ tat / dvitīyaṃ viṣayabhūtam / kiṃvaśiṣṭam / tato draṣciranyadanyatvena vibhaktaṃ yatpaśyedyadupalabheta yaddhi tadviśeṣadarśanakāraṇamantaḥkaraṇaṃ cakṣū rūpaṃ ca tadavidyayānyatvena pratyupasthāpitamāsīt / tadetasminkāla ekībhutam / ātmanaḥ pareṇa pariṣvaṅgāt / draṣṭurhi paricchinnasyaviśeṣadarśanāya karaṇamanyatvena vyatiṣṭhate / ayaṃ tu svena sarvātmanā saṃpiṣvaktaḥ svena pareṇa prājñenā'tmanā priyayeva puruṣaḥ / tena na pṛthaktvena vyavasthitāni karaṇāni viṣayāśca /tadabhāvādviśeṣadarśanaṃ nāsti / karaṇādikṛtaṃ hi tannā'tmakṛtam / ātmakṛtamiva pratyavabhāsate / tasmāttakṛteyaṃ bhrāntirātmano dṛṣṭiḥ parilupyataca iti //	That it does not see in that state of profound sleep is because, although seeing then, it does not see. You think that it does not see in the state of profound sleep; but do not think so. Why? Because it is seeing then. Objection: But we know that in the state of profound sleep it does not see, because then neither the eye nor the mind, which are the instruments of vision, is working. It is only when the eye, ear, etc; are at work that we say one is seeing or hearing. But we do not find the organs working. Therefore we conclude that it must surely not be seeing. Reply: Certainly not; it is seeing; for the vision of the witness can never be lost. As the heat of fire lasts as long as the fire, so is the witness, the self, immortal, and because of this its vision too is immortal; it lasts as long as the witness does. Objection: Do you not contradict yourself by saying in the same breath that it is a vision of the witness, and that it is never lost? Vision is an act of the witness; one is called a witness just because one sees. Hence it is impossible to say that vision, which depends on an act of the witness, is never lost. Reply: It must be immortal, because the Śruti says it is never lost. Objection: No, a Śruti text merely informs (it cannot alter a fact). The destruction of something that is artificially made is a logical necessity, and cannot be prevented even by a hundred texts, because a text only informs about a thing just as it is. Reply: The objection does not hold. The vision of the witness is possible, like the sun etc. revealing things. Just as the sun and the like are naturally always luminous and reveal things through their natural, constant light, and when we speak of them as revealing things, we do not mean that they are naturally non-luminous and only reveal things by a fresh act each time, but that they do so through their natural, constant light, so is the self called a witness on account of its imperishable, eternal vision. Objection: Then its function as a witness is secondary. Reply: No. Thus only can it be shown to be a witness in the primary sense of the word, because if the self were observed to exercise the function of seeing in any other way, then the former way might be secondary. But the self has no other method of seeing. Therefore thus only can we understand its being a witness in the primary sense, not otherwise. Just as the sun and the like reveal things through their constant, natural light, and not through one produced for the time being, (so is the self a witness through its eternal, natural intelligence), and that is its function as a witness in the primary sense, for there cannot be any other witness besides it. Therefore there is not the least trace of self-contradiction in the statement that the vision of the witness is never lost. Objection: We observe that the suffix ‘tṛc’ is used in words denoting an agent of temporary acts, such as ‘Chettṛ’ (cutter), ‘Bhettṛ’ (breaker) and ‘Gantṛ’ (traveller). So why not in the word ‘Draṣṭṛ’ (seer or witness) also in that sense? Reply: No, for we see it otherwise in the word ‘Prakāśayitṛ’ (revealer). Objection: We admit this in the case of luminous agencies, for there it can have no other sense, but not in the case of the self. Reply: Not so, for the Śruti says its vision is never lost. Objection: This is contradicted by our experience that we sometimes see and sometimes do not see. Reply: No, for this is simply due to particular activities of our organs. We observe also that those who have had their eyes removed keep the vision that belongs to the self intact in dreams. Therefore the vision • of the self is imperishable, and through that imperishable, self-luminous vision the Ātman continues to see in the state of profound sleep. How is it, then, that it does not see? This is being answered: But there is not that second thing, the object, separate from it which it can see, or perceive, Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), viz. the mind- (with the self behind it), the eyes, and forms, were all presented by ignorance as something different from the self. They are now unified in the state of profound sleep, as the individual self has been embraced by the Supreme Self. Only when the self is under limitations, do the organs stand as something different to. help it tp particular experiences. But it is now embraced by its own Supreme Self, which is Pure Intelligence and the Self of all, as a man is by his beloved wife. Hence the organs and objects do not stand as different entities; and since they are absent,, there is no particular experience, for it is the product of the organs etc., not of the self, and only appears as the product of the self. Therefore it is a mistake due to this (absence of particular experience) that the vision of the self is lost. -translation by Swami Madhvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.3.23)

Thus, if you closely observe the above quoted श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) and its corresponding भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ), it will be clear that both of them only discuss the कार्यचेतनावस्था आत्मनः सुषुप्तौ (kāryacetanāvasthā ātmanaḥ suṣuptau - effectual consciousness-state of the soul in deep sleep) in general for everyone, irrespective of whether he or she is ज्ञानिन् (jñānin - enlightened) or not. In other words, every बद्धजीवात्मन् (baddhajīvātman – bound corporeal soul) regularly undergoes the सुषुप्ति अवस्था व्याव्हारिकानुभवस्य (suṣupti avasthā vyāvhārikānubhavasya– deep sleep state of mundane phenomenal experience) as part of the अवस्थात्रय लौकिकचैतनस्य ( laukika avasthātraya laukika caitanasya– triple states of mundane consciousness); of course, the main difference between these three can be summarized as: 

कार्यचेतनावस्था (kāryacetanāvasthā – effectual consciousness state)	1	2	3
	जाग्रत् अवस्था (jāgrat avasthā – waking state)	स्वप्न अवस्था (svapna  avasthā – dream state)	सुषुप्ति अवस्था (suṣupti avasthā – deep sleep  state)
	अ (a)	उ (u)	म् (m)
लक्षण अनुभवस्य (lakṣaṇa anubhavasya – nature of experience)	भेदानुभव मानसातिरिक्तवस्तुनिष्ठसत्त्वस्य (bhedānubhava mānasātiriktavastuniṣṭhasattvasya  – differentiated-experience of the extramental objective reality)	भेदाभेदानुभव मानसप्रातितिकसत्त्वस्य (bhedābhedānubhava mānasaprātitikasattvasya  – differentiated and non-differentiated -experience of the mental subjective reality)	अभेदानुभव एकविषयसत्त्वस्य (abhedānubhava ekaviṣayasattvasya  – non-differentiated-experience of the unijective reality)
लक्षणदेहस्य (lakṣaṇadehasya – nature of body)	स्थूलदेह (sthūladeha – gross body)	सूक्ष्मदेह (sūkṣmadeha – subtle  body)	कारणदेह (kāraṇadeha – causal body)
अतिरेखिन् तत्त्ववानि प्रकृतौ (atirekhin tattvavāni prakṛtau – dominant principles of nature)	पञ्चभूत तत्त्वानि (pañcabhūta tattvāni –  five physical principles) पञ्चकर्मेन्द्रिय तत्त्वानि (pañcakarmendriya tattvāni – five conative-sense  principles) पञ्चज्ञानेन्द्रिय तत्त्वानि (pañcajñānendriya tattvāni – five cognitive-sense principles) पञ्चतन्मात्र तत्त्वानि (pañcatanmātra tattvāni – five sensation principles) चतुरन्तःकरण तत्त्वानि (caturantaḥkaraṇa tattvāni – four inner faculty principles)	पञ्चकर्मेन्द्रिय तत्त्वानि (pañcakarmendriya tattvāni – five conative-sense  principles) पञ्चज्ञानेन्द्रिय तत्त्वानि (pañcajñānendriya tattvāni – five cognitive-sense principles) पञ्चतन्मात्र तत्त्वानि (pañcatanmātra tattvāni – five sensation principles) चतुरन्तःकरण तत्त्वानि (caturantaḥkaraṇa tattvāni – four inner faculty principles)	एकान्तःकरण तत्त्व (ekāntaḥkaraṇa tattva – single inner faculty principle)
द्रष्टा दृष्टः सम्बन्धः (draṣṭā dr ̥ ṣṭ a ḥ sambandha ḥ - seer-seen relationship )	द्रष्टा दृष्टलोके अन्तर्भूत दृश्यते ( draṣ ṭ ā dr ̥ ṣ ṭ al ō k ē antarbh ū ta dr ̥ ś yat ē – the seer appears to be contained in the seen-world )	दृष्टलोकं द्रष्टरे अन्तर्भूत दृश्यते ( dr ̥ ṣṭal ō kaṁ draṣṭar ē antarbh ū ta dr ̥ ś yat ē – the seen world appears to be contained in the seer )	दृष्ट-लोकः द्रष्ट्रा सह एकीभवति (dr ̥ ṣṭ a-l ō ka ḥ dra ṣṭ r ā saha ē k ī bhavati – the seen-world unifies with the seer)
प्रयोज्य सृष्टिसिद्धान्त उत्तरमीमाम्सकेवलाद्वैतवेदान्तदर्शनस्य (prayojya sṛṣṭisiddhānta uttaramīmāmsakevalādvaitavedāntadarśanasya – applicable creation-doctrine of posterior inquiry absolute non-dualistic final gnosis philosophy)	सृष्टिदृष्टिवाद (sṛṣṭidṛṣṭivāda – doctrine of perception through creation)	दृष्टिसृष्टिवाद (dṛṣṭisṛṣṭivāda – doctrine of creation through perception)	अजातिवाद (ajātivāda - doctrine of non-origination)

In fact, one of the best analogies for the अभेदानुभव एकविषयसत्त्वस्य (abhedānubhava ekaviṣayasattvasya  – non-differentiated-experience of the unijective reality) has already been provided in the पूर्वमन्त्रत्रयम्  (pūrvamantratrayam- preceding three mantras) from the same scripture.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
ता वा अस्यैता हिता नाम नाड्यो यथा केशः सहस्रधा भिन्नस्तावताणिम्ना तिष्ठन्ति, शुक्लस्य नीलस्य पिङ्गलस्य हरितस्य लोहितस्य पूर्णा; अथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव जिनन्तीव, हस्तीव विच्छाययति, गर्तमिव पतति, यदेव जाग्रद्भयं पश्यति तदत्राविद्यया मन्यते; अथ यत्र देव इव राजेव, अहमेवेदं सर्वोऽस्मीति मन्यते, सोऽस्य परमो लोकाः ॥ तद्वा अस्यैतदतिच्छन्दा अपहतपाप्माभयं रूपम् । तद्यथा प्रियया स्त्रिया संपरिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किंचन वेद नान्तरम्, एवमेवायं पुरुषः प्राज्ञेनात्मना संपरिष्वक्तो न बाह्यं किंचन वेद नान्तरम्; तद्वा अस्यैतदाप्तकाममात्मकाममकामं रूपम् शोकान्तरम् ॥ अत्र पितापिता भवति, मातामाता, लोका अलोकाः, देवा अदेवाः, वेदा अवेदाः । अत्र स्तेनोऽस्तेनो भवति, भ्रूणहाभ्रूणहा, चाण्डालोऽचण्डालः, पौल्कसोऽपौल्कसः, श्रमणोऽश्रमणः,; तापसोऽतापसः, अनन्वागतं पुण्येनानन्वागतं पापेन, तीर्णो हि तदा सर्वाञ्छोकान्हृदयस्य भवति ॥	tā vā asyaitā hitā nāma nāḍyo yathā keśaḥ sahasradhā bhinnastāvatāṇimnā tiṣṭhanti, śuklasya nīlasya piṅgalasya haritasya lohitasya pūrṇā; atha yatrainaṃ ghnantīva jinantīva, hastīva vicchāyayati, gartamiva patati, yadeva jāgradbhayaṃ paśyati tadatrāvidyayā manyate; atha yatra deva iva rājeva, ahamevedaṃ sarvo'smīti manyate, so'sya paramo lokāḥ || tadvā asyaitadaticchandā apahatapāpmābhayaṃ rūpam | tadyathā priyayā striyā saṃpariṣvakto na bāhyaṃ kiṃcana veda nāntaram, evamevāyaṃ puruṣaḥ prājñenātmanā saṃpariṣvakto na bāhyaṃ kiṃcana veda nāntaram; tadvā asyaitadāptakāmamātmakāmamakāmaṃ rūpam śokāntaram || atra pitāpitā bhavati, mātāmātā, lokā alokāḥ, devā adevāḥ, vedā avedāḥ । atra steno'steno bhavati, bhrūṇahābhrūṇahā, cāṇḍālo'caṇḍālaḥ, paulkaso'paulkasaḥ, śramaṇo'śramaṇaḥ,; tāpaso'tāpasaḥ, ananvāgataṃ puṇyenānanvāgataṃ pāpena, tīrṇo hi tadā sarvāñchokānhṛdayasya bhavati ||	In him are those nerves called Hitā, which are as fine as a hair split into a thousand parts, and filled with white, blue, brown, green and red (serums). (They are the seat of the subtle body, in which impressions are stored.) Now when (he feels) as if he were being killed or overpowered, or being pursued by an elephant, or falling into a pit, (in short) conjures at the time through ignorance whatever terrible things he has experienced in the waking state, (that is the dream state). And when (he becomes) a god, as it were, or a king, as it were, or thinks, ‘This (universe) is myself, who am all,’ that is his highest state. That is his form—beyond desires, free from evils, and fearless. As a man, fully embraced by his beloved wife, does not know àṅything at all, either external or internal, so does this infinite being (self), fully embraced by the Supreme Self, not know anything at all, either external or internal. That is his form—in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the self, and which is free from desires and devoid of grief. In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, the worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brāhmaṇa no killer, a Caṇḍāla no Caṇḍāla, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect). -translation by Swami Madhvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (4.3.20-22)

Let us next look at specific extracts from the relevant explanation given by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) in his famous भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ) on the above quoted श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
अथ पुनर्यत्राविद्यापकृष्यमाणा विद्या चोत्कृष्यमाणा किंविषया किंलक्षणा चेत्युच्यतेअथ पुनर्यत्र यस्मिन्काले देव इव स्वयं भवति। देवताविषया विद्या यदोद्भूता जागरितकाले तदोद्भूतया वासनया देवमिवाऽत्मानं मन्यते। स्वप्नेऽपि तदुच्यते देव इव राजेव राज्यस्थोऽभिषिक्तः स्वप्नेऽपि राजाहमिति मन्यते राजवासनावासितः। एवमत्यन्तप्रक्षीयमाणाविद्योद्भूता च विद्या सर्वात्मविषया यदा यदा स्वप्नेऽपि तद्भावितोऽहमेवेदं सर्वोऽस्मीति मन्यते। स यः सर्वात्मभावः सोऽस्याऽत्मनः परमो लोकः परम आत्मभावः स्वाभावकः। यत्तु सर्वात्मभावादर्वाग्बालाग्रमात्रमप्यन्यत्वेन दृश्यते नाहमस्मीति। तदवस्थाविद्यी तयाविद्यया ये प्रत्युपस्थापिता अनात्मभावा लोकास्तेऽपरमाः स्थावरान्तास्तान्संव्यवहारविषयांल्लोकानपेक्ष्मायं सर्वात्मभावः समस्तोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः सोऽस्य परमो लोकः। तस्मादपकृष्यमाणायामविद्यायां विद्यायां च काष्टां गतायां सर्वात्मभावो मोक्षः। यथा स्वयञ्ज्योतिष्ट्वं स्वप्ने प्रत्यक्षत एवोपलभ्यतेऽथ यत्रैनं घ्नन्तीव जिनन्तीवेति। ते एते विद्याविद्याकार्ये सर्वात्मभावः परिच्छिन्नात्मभावश्च। विद्यया शुद्धया सर्वात्मा भवति। अविद्यया चासर्वो भवति। अन्यतः कुतश्चत्प्रविभक्तो भवति। यतः प्रवभक्तो भवति तेन विरुध्यते। विरुद्धत्वाद्धन्यते जीयते विच्छाद्यते च। असर्वविषयत्वे च भिन्नत्वादेतद्भवति ।समस्तस्तु सन्कुतो भिद्यते येन विरुध्येतविरोदाभावे केन हन्यते जीयते विच्छाद्यते च।	atha punaryatrāvidyāpakr̥ṣyamāṇā vidyā cōtkr̥ṣyamāṇā kiṁviṣayā kiṁlakṣaṇā cētyucyatēatha punaryatra yasminkālē dēva iva svayaṁ bhavati। dēvatāviṣayā vidyā yadōdbhūtā jāgaritakālē tadōdbhūtayā vāsanayā dēvamivā'tmānaṁ manyatē। svapnē'pi taducyatē dēva iva rājēva rājyasthō'bhiṣiktaḥ svapnē'pi rājāhamiti manyatē rājavāsanāvāsitaḥ। ēvamatyantaprakṣīyamāṇāvidyōdbhūtā ca vidyā sarvātmaviṣayā yadā yadā svapnē'pi tadbhāvitō'hamēvēdaṁ sarvō'smīti manyatē। sa yaḥ sarvātmabhāvaḥ sō'syā'tmanaḥ paramō lōkaḥ parama ātmabhāvaḥ svābhāvakaḥ। yattu sarvātmabhāvādarvāgbālāgramātramapyanyatvēna dr̥śyatē nāhamasmīti। tadavasthāvidyī tayāvidyayā yē pratyupasthāpitā anātmabhāvā lōkāstē'paramāḥ sthāvarāntāstānsaṁvyavahāraviṣayāṁllōkānapēkṣmāyaṁ sarvātmabhāvaḥ samastō'nantarō'bāhyaḥ sō'sya paramō lōkaḥ। tasmādapakr̥ṣyamāṇāyāmavidyāyāṁ vidyāyāṁ ca kāṣṭāṁ gatāyāṁ sarvātmabhāvō mōkṣaḥ। yathā svayañjyōtiṣṭvaṁ svapnē pratyakṣata ēvōpalabhyatē'tha yatrainaṁ ghnantīva jinantīvēti। tē ētē vidyāvidyākāryē sarvātmabhāvaḥ paricchinnātmabhāvaśca। vidyayā śuddhayā sarvātmā bhavati। avidyayā cāsarvō bhavati। anyataḥ kutaścatpravibhaktō bhavati। yataḥ pravabhaktō bhavati tēna virudhyatē। viruddhatvāddhanyatē jīyatē vicchādyatē ca। asarvaviṣayatvē ca bhinnatvādētadbhavati ।samastastu sankutō bhidyatē yēna virudhyētavirōdābhāvē kēna hanyatē jīyatē vicchādyatē ca।	Then when ignorance decreases and knowledge increases, (the result is as follows). The text describes the content and nature of the knowledge: And when he himself becomes a god, as it were. When, in the waking state, meditation regarding the gods prevails, he considers himself a god, as it were, on account of the impressions generated by it. The same thing is being said of the dream state too: He becomes ‘a god, as it were.’ Or a king, as it were: Having been installed as the ruler of a state (in the waking state), he thinks in his dreams also that he is a king, for he is imbued with the impressions of his kingly state. Similarly, when (in the waking state) his ignorance is extremely attenuated, and the knowledge that he comprises all arises, he thinks under the influence of these impressions in the dream state also, ‘This (universe) is myself, who am all.’ That, this identity with all, is his highest state, the Ātman’s own natural, supreme state. When, prior to this realisation of identity with all, he views the latter as other than himself even by a hair's breadth, thinking, ‘This is not myself,' that is the state of ignorance. The states divorced from the self that are brought on by ignorance, down to stationary existence, are all inferior states. Compared with these—states with which the Jīva has relative dealings—the above state of identity with all, infinite and without interior or exterior, is his supreme state. Therefore, when ignorance is eliminated and knowledge reaches its perfection, the state of identity with all, which is another name for liberation, is attained. That is to say, just as the self-effulgence of the Ātman is directly perceived in the dream state, so is this result of knowledge. Similarly, when ignorance increases and knowledge vanishes, the results of ignorance are also directly perceived in dreams: ‘Now when (he feels) as if he were being killed or overpowered,’ etc. Thus the results of knowledge and ignorance are identity with all and identity with finite things, respectively. Through pure knowledge a man is identified with all, and through ignorance he is identified with finite things, or separated from something else. He is in conflict with that from which he is separated, and because of this conflict he is killed, overpowered or pursued. All this takes place because the results of ignorance, being finite things, are separated from him. But if he is all, what is there from which he may be separated, so as to be in conflict; and in the absence of conflict by whom would he be killed, overpowered or pursued? -translation by Swami Madhavananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.3.20)

    Of course, here, in this context, the main point of difference between a अज्ञानिन् बद्धजीवात्मन् (ajñānin baddha jīvātman – ignorant bound corporeal soul) one the one hand, and a ज्ञानिन् मुक्तजीवात्मन् (jñānin muktajīvātman – enlightend liberated corporeal soul) is that for the former, confined to the अवस्थात्रय लौकिकचैतनस्य (avasthātraya laukika caitanasya– triple states of mundane consciousness) and out of which only one of the three, is active at any point of time. In other words, these are mutually exclusive air-tight compartments. However, in the case of the latter, He operates from the साकल्य तुरीयावस्था संपूर्न चैतन्यस्य (sākalya turīyāvasthā saṃpūrna caitanyasya – holistic fourth state of absolute consciusness) and unlike the former, can at his will, immanently operate, of course with a निष्काम स्थितप्रज्ञा ( niṣkāma sthitaprajñā – unselfish steady wisdom), at any or all of the लौकिकचैतनस्य (avasthātraya laukika caitanasya– triple states of mundane consciousness)   in the capacity of a जीवन्मुक्त (jīvanmukta- living liberate). On the other hand, ज्ञानिन् मुक्तजीवात्मन् (jñānin muktajīvātman – enlightend liberated corporeal soul) can decide to operate as a पारमार्थिकं साक्षी चैतन्यम् ( pāramārthika ṁ sākṣī caitanyam – transcendent witness consciousness).   In either case, He is मुक्तक दृष्टृ (muktaka dṛṣṭṛ - detached seer) personally unperturbed by the दृष्टस्य कारणप्रभावाः (dr ̥ ṣṭasya kāraṇaprabhāvāḥ - causal effects of the seen)

Before moving on to the next citation, I would like to quote here the श्री सुरेश्वराचार्य (śrī sureśvarācārya) who in his famous वार्तिक (vārtika - explanation) on the श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) as a testimonial summary of what I had discussed so far on this topic.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न पश्यतीति मन्वीथाः सुषुप्ते यन्न तत्तथा। पश्यनेवालिलृप्ताश्च आत्मायं वर्तते यतः॥ न पश्यत्येव नन्वत्र चक्षुरादेरसंभवात्। करणायन्तरेणेह जात्यन्धादिर्न विक्षते॥ नैत्तदेवं यतो दृष्टः कारकस्य स्मीक्षणे। करणानि व्यपेक्ष्यन्ते न त्वकारकविक्षणे॥ स्वप्नेऽपि चक्षुरादीनामपीतिः श्रूयते श्रुतौ। कुतः सुषुप्तौ तानि स्युर्यत्र तद्वासनापि न॥ न पश्यतीतिवचनं कारकादेरसंभवात्। वास्तवं वृत्तमापेक्षय पश्यन्वै तदितीर्यते॥ पश्यन्नेवायमत्रास्त इत्येतच्चेत्कृतो भवेत्। इत्यस्य हेतुचिद्धन्चर्थं न हि दृष्टुरितीरणम्। मेयमानप्रमातृणां व्यभिचारेऽपि चात्मनः। अनन्यानुभववादेव सिद्धिस्तद्ध्वंससाक्षितः॥ प्रमात्राद्यनभिव्याप्तं वस्तु पूर्वं समीक्ष्य हि। नाद्राक्षमिति संधत्ते दृष्टवत्सवचिदात्मना॥ यस्मादृष्टर्हि या दृष्टिर्या दृष्टा प्रसिध्यति। तस्या विपरिलोपोऽयं हेत्वाभावान्न युज्यते॥ नाशोत्पत्तयादयो धर्मा हेतुमद्वास्तुनो यतः। निर्हेतुसाक्षिणो न स्युरागमापायिसाक्षितः॥ नाशादि न स्वयं सिध्येद्विना नासादिसाक्षिणा। नातो विपरिलोपः स्याद्दृष्टुर्दृष्टेः कदा चन॥ द्रष्टुरात्मैव या दृष्टः प्रत्यगदृषचा समीक्षयते। तस्या विपरिलोपोऽत्र न कथं चन युज्यते॥ आत्मैवात्मीयभूतस्य या दृषिटरविनश्वरी। द्रष्टुर्विनाशिन्स्तस्या नोच्छत्तिरूपपद्यते॥ आगमापायिनो दृष्टुर्दृष्टस्तत्साक्षिणीम् तु या। द्रष्टद्रादिलोपसाक्षित्वात्तस्या लोपो न युज्यते॥ सत्येव साक्षिणि यतो भावाभावौ प्रसिध्यतः। जगतोऽतो न नाशः स्यादात्मदृष्टेः कुतश्चन॥	na paśyatīti manvīthāḥ suṣupte yanna tattathā। paśyanevālilṛptāśca ātmāyaṃ vartate yataḥ॥ na paśyatyeva nanvatra cakṣurāderasaṃbhavāt। karaṇāyantareṇeha jātyandhādirna vikṣate॥ naittadevaṃ yato dṛṣṭaḥ kārakasya smīkṣaṇe। karaṇāni vyapekṣyante na tvakārakavikṣaṇe॥ svapne'pi cakṣurādīnāmapītiḥ śrūyate śrutau। kutaḥ suṣuptau tāni syuryatra tadvāsanāpi na॥ na paśyatītivacanaṃ kārakāderasaṃbhavāt। vāstavaṃ vṛttamāpekṣaya paśyanvai taditīryate॥ paśyannevāyamatrāsta ityetaccetkṛto bhavet। ityasya hetuciddhancarthaṃ na hi dṛṣṭuritīraṇam। meyamānapramātṛṇāṃ vyabhicāre'pi cātmanaḥ। ananyānubhavavādeva siddhistaddhvaṃsasākṣitaḥ॥ pramātrādyanabhivyāptaṃ vastu pūrvaṃ samīkṣya hi। nādrākṣamiti saṃdhatte dṛṣṭavatsavacidātmanā॥ yasmādṛṣṭarhi yā dṛṣṭiryā dṛṣṭā prasidhyati। tasyā viparilopo'yaṃ hetvābhāvānna yujyate॥ nāśotpattayādayo dharmā hetumadvāstuno yataḥ। nirhetusākṣiṇo na syurāgamāpāyisākṣitaḥ॥ nāśādi na svayaṃ sidhyedvinā nāsādisākṣiṇā। nāto viparilopaḥ syāddṛṣṭurdṛṣṭeḥ kadā cana॥ draṣṭurātmaiva yā dṛṣṭaḥ pratyagadṛṣacā samīkṣayate। tasyā viparilopo'tra na kathaṃ cana yujyate॥ ātmaivātmīyabhūtasya yā dṛṣiṭaravinaśvarī। draṣṭurvināśinstasyā nocchattirūpapadyate॥ āgamāpāyino dṛṣṭurdṛṣṭastatsākṣiṇīm tu yā। draṣṭadrādilopasākṣitvāttasyā lopo na yujyate॥ satyeva sākṣiṇi yato bhāvābhāvau prasidhyataḥ। jagato'to na nāśaḥ syādātmadṛṣṭeḥ kutaścana॥	What you think, viz. that (the Ātman) does not see (any external object(s)) in deep sleep, is not like that, since this Ātman is ever seeing, while seeing (reality) with the eye is (never) lost. (It may be argued yet) 'Indeed, it does not see (any external objects), for there is absence (asambhava) of eye etc.; here (i.e. in this world) a person who is born blind does not (i.e.) cannot see without (the help of) limbs'. (The following can be said in answer:) 'This is not (or, cannot be said) so, since (it is only) in the case of agent of some activity (kāraka) that limbs are expected; but not in the case of one (viz. the Ātman) who is not an agent (of any activity and is yet in the act of) seeing'. It is heard in the Śruti that there is merger of the eye etc. (in reality, viz. the Ātman), while a person is in the dream state also; how (then) can they be there in the deep sleep state, wherein impression (on the intellect) of that also does not exist?’ The statement (in the Śruti) ‘na paśyam…’ is made on account of the absence (asambhava) of any means of activity (kāraka). And that statement, viz. ‘paśyam vai…’ is made with the actual happening (lit. activity) in the case of the reality, viz. the Ātman (vāstava vṛtta). If there is (the statement in the Śruti, viz.) ‘This one, (i.e. the Ātman), abides here (i.e. in the deep sleep state) as only the seeing one’- how whence this can be (reasonable)?, to explain/establish the cause for it (viz. that happening/activity) is made (in the Śruti yet another statement, “na hi draṣṭuḥ…”). And (that is to say:) even in the absence (vyabhicāra) of the object of knowing, the means of knowing and the agent of knowing, there is estalished (the truth in the statement) on the strength of the exceptional experience of the Ātman through its witnessing the destruction of them all. Indeed (hi) having first well thought over the real thing (viz. Ātman) as being non-pervaded by (i.e. uncharecterized as) the agent of knowing etc., one’s own sentience (i.e. the inner self) considers, ‘I have not seen’ as in the case of some seen object, by itself. (The Śruti statement means:) Since that (viz. the power of) seeing the seer by which (i.e. being possessed of which) is the seer established (as such) – this loss of it (which is meant) is (in reality) not reasonable on account of the absence of (any) cause (for that loss). Since the happenings (dharma), viz. destruction, origination etc. are possible only in the case of the thing which has a cause for it; they do not obtain in the case of the causeless witness on account of its witnessing the origin and the destruction (of them). Destruction etc. would not occur, of itself. (if) without (i.e. there is not assumed to exist) the witness of destruction etc.; therefore, there would never be the loss of the (power of) seeing the seer. That (power of) seeing, which is the very nature (ātmaiva) of the seer/witness is well seen (or, known/understood) by the (power of) seeing that belongs to sentience within (viz. the transmigaratory Ātman). The loss (or, perishing) of that, here (i.e. in deep sleep), is in no way understandable. (Further) that imperishable (power of) seeing which belongs to the perishable (lit. perishing) seer (within), that has (really) become (an aspect) of the (imperishable) Ātman, is the very nature (ātmaiva) of it – the destruction (or loss) of it does not stand to reason. And (tu) that (power of) seeing which is the witness of that seer, that comes into being and perishes, is not understandably lost, because of it being the witness of the loss of the seer etc. Since the coming into existence and perishing of the world become understandable (or, lit. established), if and when there is (accepted the existence of) the witness. Therefore, there cannot be, on any account, perishing/loss of the (power of) seeing which belongs to the Ātman. -translation by K.P. Jog Shoun Hino
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्वार्तिक(śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadvārtika) (1413-1427)

Citation 2.1.2: From  श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)   (# 1.1)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  अध्यास्यभाष्य   (adhyāsyabhāṣya - superimostion commentary)  as part of the   श्रीमद्  बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्   (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.2  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

This mutual superimposition of the non-Self and the Self (atmānatmanor itaretara adhyāsaṁ) that is called avidya (avidya akhyam) is the basis (puraskṛtya) on which rest all the practical distinctions between means of knowledge and objects of knowledge (sarve pramāṇa prameya)…. Samadhana: This is being explained. (a)When there is no possibility of one who is devoid of identification with ‘I’ and ‘mine’ with regard to the body and sense organs, to become a cognizer, the means of knowledge is inoperative for without (the participation of) the sense organs the means of knowledge such as perception cannot operate. (b)The function of the sense organs is not possible without a basis (body). (c)Nor does one become engaged in activity without attributing the notion ‘I’ to the body. When all these do not combine the Self that is unattached cannot become a cognizer, there is no operation of the means of knowledge. Therefore, the means of knowledge such as perception and the scriptures are meant only for those that remain on the plane of avidya. (adhyasa bhasya)

   Well, let us first understand the original words of the revered भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) in order to analyze the above claim

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तमेतमेवंलक्षणमध्यासं पण्डिता अविद्येति मन्यन्ते। तद्विवेकेन च वस्तुस्वरूपावधारणं विद्यामाहुः। तत्रैवं सति यत्र यदध्यासः तत्कृतेन दोषेण गुणेन वा अणुमात्रेणापि स न संबध्यते। तमेतमविद्याख्यमात्मानात्मनोरितरेतराध्यासं पुरस्कृत्य सर्वे प्रमाणप्रमेयव्यवहारा लौकिकाः प्रवृत्ताः सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि विधिप्रतिषेधमोक्षपराणि। कथं पुनरविद्यावद्विषयाणि प्रत्यक्षादीनि प्रमाणानि शास्त्राणि चेति उच्यते देहेन्द्रियादिषु अहंममाभिमानरहितस्य प्रमातृत्वानुपपत्तौ प्रमाणप्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः। न हीन्द्रियाण्यनुपादाय प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहारः संभवति। न चाधिष्ठानमन्तरेण इन्द्रियाणां व्यापारः संभवति। न चानध्य स्तात्मभावेन देहेन कश्चिद्व्याप्रियते। न चैतस्मिन् सर्वस्मिन्नसति असङ्गस्यात्मनः प्रमातृत्वमुपपद्यते। न च प्रमातृत्वमन्तरेण प्रमाणप्रवृत्तिरस्ति। तस्मादविद्यावद्विषयाण्येव प्रत्यक्षादीनि प्रमाणानि शास्त्राणि चेति।	tamētamēvaṁlakṣaṇamadhyāsaṁ paṇḍitā avidyēti manyantē। tadvivēkēna ca vastusvarūpāvadhāraṇaṁ vidyāmāhuḥ। tatraivaṁ sati yatra yadadhyāsaḥ tatkr̥tēna dōṣēṇa guṇēna vā aṇumātrēṇāpi sa na saṁbadhyatē। tamētamavidyākhyamātmānātmanōritarētarādhyāsaṁ puraskr̥tya sarvē pramāṇapramēyavyavahārā laukikāḥ pravr̥ttāḥ sarvāṇi ca śāstrāṇi vidhipratiṣēdhamōkṣaparāṇi। kathaṁ punaravidyāvadviṣayāṇi pratyakṣādīni pramāṇāni śāstrāṇi cēti ucyatē dēhēndriyādiṣu ahaṁmamābhimānarahitasya pramātr̥tvānupapattau pramāṇapravr̥ttyanupapattēḥ। na hīndriyāṇyanupādāya pratyakṣādivyavahāraḥ saṁbhavati। na cādhiṣṭhānamantarēṇa indriyāṇāṁ vyāpāraḥ saṁbhavati। na cānadhya stātmabhāvēna dēhēna kaścidvyāpriyatē। na caitasmin sarvasminnasati asaṅgasyātmanaḥ pramātr̥tvamupapadyatē। na ca pramātr̥tvamantarēṇa pramāṇapravr̥ttirasti। tasmādavidyāvadviṣayāṇyēva pratyakṣādīni pramāṇāni śāstrāṇi cēti।	This superimposition, that is of this nature, is considered by the learned to be avidyā, nescience. And the ascertainment of the nature of the real entity by separating the superimposed thing from it is called vidyā (illumination). This being so whenever there is a superimposition of one thing on another, the locus is not affected in any way either by the merits or demerits of the thing superimposed. All forms of worldly and Vedic behaviour that are connected with valid means of knowledge and objects of knowledge start by taking for granted this mutual superimposition of the Self and non-Self, known as nescience; and so do all the scriptures dealing with injunction, prohibition, or emancipation. Opponent: How, again, can the means of valid knowledge, such as direct perception as well as the scriptures, have as their locus a cognizer who is subject to nescience? The (Vediintin's) answer is: Since a man without self-identification with the body, mind, senses, etc., cannot become a cognizer, and as such, the means of knowledge cannot function for him; since perception and other activities (of a man) are not possible without accepting the senses etc. (as his own); since the senses cannot function without (the body as) a basis; since nobody engages in any activity with a body that has not the idea of the Self superimposed on it; since the unrelated Self cannot become a cognizer unless there are all these (mutual superimposition of the Self and the body and their attributes on each other); and since the means of knowledge cannot function unless there is a cognizership; therefore it follows that the means of knowledge, such as direct perception as well as the scriptures, must have a man as their locus who is subject to nescience. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.1.0)

Obviously, it would be clear that, in general terms the above extract is an excellent introduction to the अध्यासारोप सिद्धान्तः अविद्यामायायाः (adhyāsāropa siddhāntaḥ avidyāmāyāyāḥ - virtual superimpostion doctrine of nescient apparition). However, claiming that the above passage testifies that the ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति ( jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārika ṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightend liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world) is not technically correct, since the भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) nowhere in the above quote, mentions so. 

Citation 2.1.3: From  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्   (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)   (# 4.3.21)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  श्रीमद्  बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्   (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.3  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

It is like this. As a man embraced by a woman he loves is oblivious to everything within or without, so this person embraced by the self (Atman) consisting of knowledge is oblivious to everything within or without (BU 4.3.21)

As I have already discussed this under citation 2.1, I am skipping it here.

Citation 2.1.4: From  श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद्  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad)   (# 6.2.1)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद्  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.4  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

“'0 good looking one, in the beginning this was Existence alone, One only, without a second.”

Let us now look at what the original श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) actually declares here.  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जायत ॥	adeva somyedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyam | taddhaika āhurasadevedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyaṃ tasmādasataḥ sajjāyata ||	Somya, before this world was manifest there was only existence, one without a second. On this subject, some maintain that before this world was manifest there was only non-existence, one without a second. Out of that non-existence, existence emerged. translation by Swami Lokeswarananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad) (6.2.1)

     It is very clear that the above श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) has nothing to do specifically with ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightend liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world). Even the corresponding श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) does not deal with it.

Citation 2.1.5: From  श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)   (# 7.24.1)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial commentarial extract from the  श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.5  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

Bhasya: “Vediintin: No. Since the instruction of oneness is given by saying 'Thou art That', there is no scope for the difference between the basis and the thing supported, and similarly, there can be no scope of any vision with regard to oneself, since it has been ascertained in the sixth chapter that Truth is one Existence, without a second; and also in Upanishadic texts like: , ... established in this unperceivable, bodiless ... Brahman' (Tai. II.7.1); 'His form does not exist within the range of vision' (Ka.11.3.9); 'Through what, 0 Maitreyi, should one know the knower?' (Br. 11.4.14). … The idea is that this (finitude) exists during the period of ignorance. It is like a thing seen in a dream, which exists only during that period, before waking. Chbh7.24.1

Let us now look at what the original  श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)   actually declares here.  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमाथ यत्रान्यत्पश्यत्यन्यच्छृणोत्यन्यद्विजानाति तदल्पं यो वै भूमा तदमृतमथ यदल्पं तन्मर्त्य्ं स भगवः कस्मिन्प्रतिष्ठित इति स्वे महिम्नि यदि वा न महिम्नीति ॥	yatra nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti sa bhūmātha yatrānyatpaśyatyanyacchṛṇotyanyadvijānāti tadalpaṃ yo vai bhūmā tadamṛtamatha yadalpaṃ tanmartyṃ sa bhagavaḥ kasminpratiṣṭhita iti sve mahimni yadi vā na mahimnīti |	‘Wherein one sees nothing else, hears nothing else and understands nothing else,—that is the Infinite; wherein one sees something else, hears something else, and understands smething else,—that is Finite. That which is Infinite is immortal; that which is Finite is mortal.’ ‘Revered sir, wherein does that rest?’—‘In Its own majesty, or not in majesty.’ translation by Sri Ganganath Jha
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad) (7.24.1)

    Let us next look at the explanation given by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) in his famous भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ) on the above quoted श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न  तत्त्वमसीत्येकत्वोपदेशादधिकरणाधिकर्तव्यभेदानुपत्तेः। तथा सदेकमेवाद्वितीयं सत्यमिति षष्ठे निर्धारितत्त्वात्। "अदृश्येऽनात्म्ये" (तै।उप्। २।७।१) "न संदृशे तिष्ठति रूपमस्य" (कठो उप्। २।३।९) "विज्ञातारमरे केन विज्ञानीयात्" (बृह्। उप्। २।४।१४) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः स्वत्मनिदर्शनाद्यनुपप्पति। यत्रेति विशेषमनर्थकं प्राप्तमिति चेत्? न, अविद्याकृतभेदापेक्षत्वात्। यथा सत्यैकत्वाद्वितीयत्वबुद्धि प्रकृतामपेक्ष्य सदेकमेवाद्वितीयमिति संख्याद्यनर्हम्प्युच्यते, एवं भूमन्येकस्मिन्नेव यत्रेति विशेषणम्। अविद्यावास्थायामन्यदर्शनानुवादेन च भूमन्स्तदभावत्वलक्षणस्य विवक्षितत्वान्नान्यपश्यतीति विशेषणम्। तस्मात्संसारव्य्वहारो भूमिन् नास्तीति समुदायार्थः। अथ यत्रा विद्याविषयेऽन्योन्येनान्यत्पश्यतीति तदल्पमविद्याकालमावित्यर्थः। यथा स्वप्नदृश्यं वस्तु प्राक् प्रभोदात्तत्कालभावीति तद्वत्। तत एव तन्मत्यं विनाशि स्वप्मवस्तुवदेवतद्विपरीतो भूमा यस्तद्म्ऱ्&इतम्। तच्छब्दोऽमृतत्वपरः।	na tattvamasītyekatvopadeśādadhikaraṇādhikartavyabhedānupatteḥ। tathā sadekamevādvitīyaṃ satyamiti ṣaṣṭhe nirdhāritattvāt। "adṛśye'nātmye" (tai।up। 2।7।1) "na saṃdṛśe tiṣṭhati rūpamasya" (kaṭho up। 2।3।9) "vijñātāramare kena vijñānīyāt" (bṛh। up। 2।4।14) ityādiśrutibhyaḥ svatmanidarśanādyanupappati। yatreti viśeṣamanarthakaṃ prāptamiti cet? na, avidyākṛtabhedāpekṣatvāt। yathā satyaikatvādvitīyatvabuddhi prakṛtāmapekṣya sadekamevādvitīyamiti saṃkhyādyanarhampyucyate, evaṃ bhūmanyekasminneva yatreti viśeṣaṇam। avidyāvāsthāyāmanyadarśanānuvādena ca bhūmanstadabhāvatvalakṣaṇasya vivakṣitatvānnānyapaśyatīti viśeṣaṇam। tasmātsaṃsāravyvahāro bhūmin nāstīti samudāyārthaḥ। atha yatrā vidyāviṣaye'nyonyenānyatpaśyatīti tadalpamavidyākālamāvityarthaḥ। yathā svapnadṛśyaṃ vastu prāk prabhodāttatkālabhāvīti tadvat। tata eva tanmatyaṃ vināśi svapmavastuvadevatadviparīto bhūmā yastadm&itam। tacchabdo'mṛtatvaparaḥ।	Not so; inasmuch as absolute unity has been taught in the text ‘That thou art’,—there is no possibility of any such distinction as between the container and the contained (as is involved in the qualifications ‘wherein’ and ‘nothing else’). Further, under Discourse VI, it has been established that Being alone is ‘True, one, without a second’;—and in accordance with the following texts, the perception of self by itself is not possible—(a) ‘Invisible,—not self etc.’ (Taitti. Upa 2. 7. 1.); (b) ‘Its form is not within the range of vision.’ (Katha Upa. 6. 9.); (c) ‘By what could one know the knower?’ (Bṛhadā. Upa. II. iv. 14.) In that case, the qualifying term ‘wherein’ becomes meaningless. No; it is in reference to distinctions based upon Nescience (ignorance). In the text ‘Being, one, without a second’, is found that though Being is really incapable of numerical qualification (as expressed by the term ‘one’), yet it is spoken of in that way in reference to these notions of ‘truth’, ‘unity’ and ‘secondless’ as have been dealt with in the context in which the said text (Being, one, secondless) occurs. In the same manner, though the Infinite is one only, yet the qualification of ‘wherein’ has been applied to it (in reference to what is spoken of in the context).—Further, when the text applies to the Infinite the qualification involved in the phrase sees nothing else’ (which implies distinction), what it does is to make a reference to the seeing of otherś during the (normal) state of ignorance, and then to deny that seeing of others in regard to the Infinite.—Thus, the upshot of the whole context is that the process of births and deaths is not applicable to the Infinite (which is beyond the reach of that process). On the other hand, when, in the sphere of ignorance (Nescience), one sees something else, through something else, —that is Finite; that is, exists only so long as the ignorance lasts; just as things perceived during a dream lasts only till waking, only so long as the dream lasts.—For that same reason, it is mortal,—perishable,—like the thing perceived in a dream. Contrary to all this is the Infinite, which is immortal;—the pronoun ‘tat’ refers to ‘amṛta’ (Hence, in the Neuter form). translation by Ganganath Jha (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् छान्दोग्योपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (7.24.1)

      

The main crux of the above श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) and its associated शङ्करभाष्य (śaṅkarabhāṣya - Shankara's commentary) is to emphasize the fact of the सर्वव्यापिन् केवलाद्वैत ब्रह्मानुभवम् (sarvavyāpin kevalādvaita brahmānubhavam – omnipresent nondual spiritual experience) wherein whatever one पश्यति (paśyati - sees), शृणोति (śr ̥ ṇ ō ti - hears),  स्पृशति   (spr ̥ ś ati - touches), जिघ्राति   (jighrāti - smells) & रसयति (rasayati - tastes) is nothing other than स्वयं (svayaṃ - onseself) .   To better understand the concept, I would like to share here the commentary on the same by Swami Sri Lokeshavarananda (RKM Order) wherein he illustrates thus:  

At the level of bhūmā, the infinite, there is only bhūmā—nothing but bhūmā. And when you attain that level, you see nothing but bhūmā. If you see anything else, then you know at once it is alpa, finite.

Suppose you are alone in a room with a hundred mirrors. What will you see? Only yourself—the same self multiplied a hundred times. But if you attain the state of bhūmā, or Brahman, this is just the experience you will have. You will see yourself everywhere—the same Self in all beings.

We talk of love and compassion, but how can there be love unless there is a feeling of oneness? When you have this feeling of oneness, then if someone is in pain, you are also in pain. True love is possible only when we realize that ‘you’ and ‘I are one and the same. This is the supreme experience.

Once at Dakshineswar two boatmen were having a quarrel and one of them started beating the other. Ramakrishna saw it from a distance and felt as if he were being beaten. Even the marks of the beating were seen on his body. Another day he saw someone walking on some grass, and he felt that the person was stepping on him.

When Ramakrishna had throat cancer he could hardly eat a thing. One day some of his disciples went to him and begged him to ask Mother Kali to cure him. Ramakrishna replied that he could not ask such a thing from her, that he depended totally on her will. But the disciples would not let him alone. They pleaded again and again: ‘Do it for our sake.’ They could not bear to see him suffer.

Finally Ramakrishna agreed to say something to the Mother. When the disciples came back to him later to ask if he had talked to the Mother, Ramakrishna said, ‘I told Mother that I could not eat because of the pain in my throat, and I asked her to allow me to eat something.’ ‘What did she say?’ they asked. Ramakrishna replied: ‘She showed me all of you, and then she said, “But you are eating through so many mouths.” I was ashamed and could not utter another word.’

There is a story about Ganesh and his mother Parvati. Once when Ganesh was playing with a cat, he became very rough and beat it. Later, when he went to his mother, he noticed wounds all over her body. Ganesh was alarmed and asked, ‘Who has beaten you, Mother?’ Parvati replied: ‘Son, you have done this. You beat the cat, but I am also in the cat. If you hurt the cat you hurt me too.’

The Vedāntic idea is that the same Self is everywhere. It is the same consciousness. In some cases that consciousness is more manifest, and in other cases it is less, but it is the same Self permeating everything. From a tiny atom to the whole cosmos, it is all one. The difference is only in the degree of manifestation.

Where there is duality there is conflict, so we must beware of the finite. We must beware of limiting ourselves to our own body. That is the small ‘I’. The body will die, and you think you will die. But if you are one with bhūmā, you are immortal.

Nārada is a very intelligent person. He asks: ‘There is this bhūmā. But who or what supports it?’ Sanatkumāra replies: ‘Bhūmā is self-sufficient. It supports itself. In fact, there is nothing besides bhūmā to speak of supporting or not supporting. There is just one. If there are two things, then only does the question of supporting arise.’

 

Citation 2.1.6: From  श्रीमद् कठोपनिषद्  (śrīmad kaṭhopaniṣad)   (# 7.24.1)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् कठोपनिषद्  (śrīmad kaṭhopaniṣad)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.6  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

He goes from death to death who sees any difference here.

Let us now look at what the original  श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)   actually declares here. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यदेवेह तदमुत्र यदमुत्र तदन्विह । मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥	yadeveha tadamutra yadamutra tadanviha | mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati ||	What indeed is here, is there; what there, that here again; from Death to Death he goes; who here sees, as if different. translation by S Sitarama Shastry
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् कठोपनिषद् (śrīmad kaṭhopaniṣad) (6.10.1)

Let us next look at the explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above quoted  श्रुतिवाक्य  (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
यदेवह कार्यकारणोपाधिसमन्वितं संसारवदवभासमानमविवेकिनां तदेव स्वात्मस्थममुत्र नित्य विज़्नानघनस्वभावं सर्वसंसारधर्मवर्जितं ब्रह्म। यञ्चामुत्रामुष्मिन्नात्मनि स्थितं तदेवेह नामरूपाकार्यकारणोपाधिम् अनुविभाव्यामानं नान्यत्। तत्रैवं सत्युपाधिस्वभावभेददृष्टिलक्षणयाविद्या मोहितः सन् य इह ब्रह्ंण्यनानाभृते परसमादन्योऽहं मत्तोऽन्यत्परं ब्रह्मेति नानेव भिन्नमिव पश्यतुपभते स मृतोर्य्मरणान्मरणं मृत्युः पुनः पुनर्जन्ममरणभावमाप्नेति प्रतिपद्यते। तस्मात्तथा न पश्यते। विज्ञानैकरसं नैरन्तर्येणाकाश्वत् परिपूर्णं ब्रह्मैवाहमस्मीति पश्येत् इति वाक्यार्थः॥	yadevaha kāryakāraṇopādhisamanvitaṃ saṃsāravadavabhāsamānamavivekināṃ tadeva svātmasthamamutra nitya vinānaghanasvabhāvaṃ sarvasaṃsāradharmavarjitaṃ brahma। yañcāmutrāmuṣminnātmani sthitaṃ tadeveha nāmarūpākāryakāraṇopādhim anuvibhāvyāmānaṃ nānyat। tatraivaṃ satyupādhisvabhāvabhedadṛṣṭilakṣaṇayāvidyā mohitaḥ san ya iha brahṃṇyanānābhṛte parasamādanyo'haṃ matto'nyatparaṃ brahmeti nāneva bhinnamiva paśyatupabhate sa mṛtorymaraṇānmaraṇaṃ mṛtyuḥ punaḥ punarjanmamaraṇabhāvamāpneti pratipadyate। tasmāttathā na paśyate। vijñānaikarasaṃ nairantaryeṇākāśvat paripūrṇaṃ brahmaivāhamasmīti paśyet iti vākyārthaḥ॥	This is said in order that the doubt may not arise in anybody; that what exists in all from the Brahma down to the immovable and appears, being subject to particular conditions, as something other than Brahman and subject to samsara, he is different from the highest Brahman. What indeed is here subject to conditions of causes and effects and appears to the ignorant as possessing the attributes of samsara, he is indeed the Brahman there centred within the body, in his nature dense with eternal knowledge and devoid of the attributes of all samsara; again, what there is centred with self is itself here subject to conditions of name, form, cause and effect and is no other. This being so, he who here deluded by ignorance, which consists in seeing difference by the nature of the conditions sees in the Brahman which is one, a variety, thinking thus ‘I am other than the highest Brahman and the highest Brahman is other than I’, goes from death to death, i.e., is again born and dies; so, one should not see thus. The drift of the text is that one should see thus. ‘I am indeed the Brahman, the one unalloyed intelligence, all-pervading, filling all space like the akas’. translation by S Sitarama Shastry
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् कठोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad kaṭhopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (6.10.1)

Swami Sarvapriyananad (RKM Order) has given an excellent discourse on the above above श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)

    

An अज्ञानिन् बद्धजीवात्मन् (ajñānin baddha jīvātman – ignorant bound corporeal soul) will is bound to see the differences which are caused by limiting adjuncts in terms of पञ्चविधभेदाः प्रपञ्चे (pañcavidhabhedāḥ prapañce – fivefold differences in the manifest world) viz.

• जीव ईश्वर भेद (jīva īśvara bheda – living-being & god difference)
• जड ईश्वर भेद (jaḍa īśvara bheda –  non-living being & god difference)
• जीव जीव भेद (jīva jīva bheda  – living being & living being)
• जीव जड भेद   (jīva jaḍa bheda - living being & non-living being)
• जद जद भेद (jada jada bheda - non-living being & non-living being)

And typically, only such an अज्ञानिन् बद्धजीवात्मन् (ajñānin baddha jīvātman – ignorant bound corporeal soul) repeatedly experiences the लौकिक संसारिन्चक्र पुनर्जन्मस्य (laukika aśubha saṃsārincakra punarjanmasya – mundane transmigoratory cycle of metempsychosis) .

    However, claiming that the above श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) testifies that the ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति ( jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārika ṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightend liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world) is not technically correct. Neither does the भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra - commentator) mentions so anywhere in this famous भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ) .  In fact, on the other hand he emphatically recommends that “ विज्ञानैकरसं नैरन्तर्येणाकाश्वत् परिपूर्णं ब्रह्मैवाहमस्मीति पश्येत् इति वाक्यार्थः (vijñānaikarasaṃ nairantaryeṇākāśvat paripūrṇaṃ brahmaivāhamasmīti paśyet iti vākyārthaḥ - The drift of the text is that one should see thus. ‘I am indeed the Brahman , the one unalloyed intelligence, all-pervading, filling all space like the  akas ’) ”.  In other words, what is emphasized is the केवलाद्वैत ज्ञानदृष्टि (kevalādvaita jñānadṛṣṭi – absolute non-dualistic wisdom vision) of seeing “ आत्मा यथा सर्वं सर्वं च आत्मनः ( ātmā yathā sarvaṁ sarvaṁ ca ātmanaḥ - Self as everything and everything as Self)”

Citation 2.1.7: From  श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)   (# 2.8)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.7  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

And this name and form are merely imagined in the Absolute, like day and night in the sun. From the standpoint of the highest truth, they do not exist.

The above extract is from the श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) which occurs as part of the अष्टम अनुवाक द्वितीये वल्ल्यां तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः (aṣṭama anuvāka dvitīye vallyāṃ taittirīyopaniṣadaḥ - eighth chapter in the second creeper of Taittirya Upanishad).  But before sharing my 2 cents of critical analysis around this specific statement, I think it is important for us to understand the bigger picture explained in the द्वितीय वल्ल्यां तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः (dvitīya vallyāṃ taittirīyopaniṣadaḥ - second creeper of Taittirya Upanishad) whch is titled as “ ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली (brahmānandavallī – divine bliss creeper)” wherein श्री वरुणदेव (śrī varuṇadeva – Lord Varuna Deva) discusses at length the topic of ब्रह्मानन्दव् मीमांसा (brahmānandav mīmāṃsā – divine bliss inquiry) when he was in the आश्रम श्रीवैशंपायनमहऋषेः (āśrama śrīvaiśaṃpāyanamahaṛṣeḥ - hermitage of Sri Vaishampayana Maharishi) .

In fact, the very crux of the ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली (brahmānandavallī – divine bliss creeper) deals with the theme that the “ ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम् (brahmavidāpnoti param – knower of brahman attaineth the highest)” , as testified in it at the very beginning itself. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
ॐ ब्रह्मविदाप्नोति परम्‌। तदेषाऽभ्युक्ता।सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म। यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन्‌।सोऽश्नुते सर्वान्‌ कामान् सह ब्रह्मणा विपश्चितेति॥ तस्माद्वा एतस्मादात्मन आकाशः संभूतः। आकाशाद्वायुः।वायोरग्निः। अग्नेरापः। अद्‌भ्यः पृथिवी।पृथिव्या ओषधयः। ओषधीभ्योऽन्नम्‌। अन्नात्पुरुषः।स वा एष पुरुषोऽन्न्नरसमयः।तस्येदमेव शिरः। अयं दक्षिणः पक्षः। अयमुत्तरः पक्षः। अयमात्मा। इदं पुच्छं प्रतिष्ठा।तदप्येष श्लोको भवति।	om brahmavidāpnoti param | tadeṣā'bhyuktā |satyaṁ jñānamanantaṁ brahma | yo veda nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ parame vyoman |so'śnute sarvān kāmān saha brahmaṇā vipaściteti || tasmādvā etasmādātmana ākāśaḥ saṁbhūtaḥ | ākāśādvāyuḥ |vāyoragniḥ | agnerāpaḥ | adbhyaḥ pṛthivī pṛthivyā oṣadhayaḥ | oṣadhībhyo'nnam | annātpuruṣaḥ |sa vā eṣa puruṣo'nnnarasamayaḥ |tasyedameva śiraḥ| ayaṁ dakṣiṇaḥ pakṣaḥ | ayamuttaraḥ pakṣaḥ| ayamātmā | idaṁ pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā |tadapyeṣa śloko bhavati|	OM. The knower of Brahman attaineth the Highest; for this is the verse that was declared of old, “Brahman is Truth, Brahman is Knowledge, Brahman is the Infinite, he that findeth Him hidden in the cavern heart of being; in the highest heaven of His creatures, lo he enjoyeth all desire and he abideth with the Eternal, even with that cognisant and understanding Spirit.” This is the Self, the Spirit, and from the Spirit ether was born; and from the ether, air; and from the air, fire; and from the fire, the waters; and from the waters, earth; and from the earth, herbs and plants; and from the herbs and plants, food; and from food man was born. Verily, man, this human being, is made of the essential substance of food. And this that we see is the head of him, and this is his right side and this is his left; and this is his spirit & the self of him; and this is his lower member whereon he resteth abidingly. Whereof this is the Scripture. -translation by Sri Aurobindo
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad) (2.1.1)

Let us next look at the explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above quoted  श्रुतिवाक्य  (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
ब्रह्मविद् ब्रह्मेति वक्ष्यमाणलक्षणं ब्रह्मत्वाद ब्रह्म तद्वेत्ति विजानातीतिब्रह्मवेदाप्नोति परं निरतिशयं तदेव ब्रह्म परम्। न हम्न्यस्य विज्ञानादयस्य प्राप्तिः। स्पष्टं च श्रुत्यन्तरं ब्रह्मप्राप्तिमेव ब्रह्मविदो दर्शयति "स यो ह वै तत्परमं ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति" (मु उप ३।२।९) इत्यादि।	brahmavid brahmeti vakṣyamāṇalakṣaṇaṃ brahmatvāda brahma tadvetti vijānātītibrahmavedāpnoti paraṃ niratiśayaṃ tadeva brahma param। na hamnyasya vijñānādayasya prāptiḥ। spaṣṭaṃ ca śrutyantaraṃ brahmaprāptimeva brahmavido darśayati "sa yo ha vai tatparamaṃ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" (mu upa 3।2।9) ityādi।	Brahman whose charecteristics will be spoken of later is called so because of being the greatest. Brahmavid is the one who knows that Brahman. He reaches the exceptionally highest. That certainly is Brahman the highest, for the attainment of something is not, indeed possible from the knowledge of something else, for another sruti passage declares, "He who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman Itself" (Mun Upa 3.2.9) clearly shows the attainment of Brahman by the knower of Brahman. -translation by Sri V. Panoli
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.1.1)

And the next पञ्च अनुवाकाः ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ल्यां तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः (pañca anuvākāḥ brahmānandavallyāṃ taittirīyopaniṣadaḥ – five chapters in the divine bliss creeper of taittriya upanishad) deals in detail with the important art and science of पञ्चकोशविवेकप्रक्रिया (pañcakośavivekaprakriyā – five-sheath discrimination process).

#	अनुवाक ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ल्यां तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः (anuvāka brahmānandavallyāṃ taittirīyopaniṣadaḥ – chapter in the divine bliss creeper of taittriya upanishad)	कोश   (kośa –sheath)	प्रायस्य आलोकन प्रवृत्तेः   (prāyasya ālokana pravṛtteḥ – predominant aspect of manifestation)
1	द्वितीय अनुवाक (dvitīya anuvāka – second chapter)	अन्नमयकोश   (annamayakośa – food dominant sheath)	भूतद्रव्य  (bhūtadravya – physical matter)
2	तृतीय अनुवाक (tṛtīya anuvāka – third chapter)	प्राणमयकोश   (prāṇamayakośa – vital dominant sheath)	जीवन / प्राण  (jīvana / prāṇa – life / vitality)
3	चतुर्थ अनुवाक (caturtha anuvāka – fourth chapter)	मनोमयकोश   (manomayakośa – mind dominant sheath)	मनस्  (manas - mind)
4	पञ्चम अनुवाक (pañcama anuvāka – fifth chapter)	विज्ञानमयकोश   (vijñānamayakośa – gnosis dominant sheath)	ज्ञान  (jñāna - wisdom)
5	षष्ठक अनुवाक (ṣaṣṭhaka anuvāka – sixth chapter)	आनन्दमयकोश  (ānandamaya kośa– bliss dominant sheath)	आनन्द  (ānanda – bliss)

While it would not be practically possible for me to deep dive here (in a blogging platform) into all the पञ्चकोशाः आत्मचैतन्यस्य (pañcakośāḥ ātmacaitanyasya - five sheaths of self consciousness), I would like to share specifically on the last and final one viz. आनन्दमयकोश  (ānandamaya kośa– bliss dominant sheath) since it is related to the concept of  “ ब्रह्मानन्द (brahmānanda – divine bliss) “ which is the subject matter ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली (brahmānandavallī – divine bliss creeper) about which we are discussing here in this blog. 

 

Reference

https://whatisgod-sanathanadharma.blogspot.com/p/adhyacara-anandasya-domain-of-bliss.html#gsc.tab=0

Next, let’s me briefly touch upon the सप्तम अनुवाक तीये वल्ल्यां तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः (saptama  anuvāka dvitīye vallyāṃ taittirīyopaniṣadaḥ - seventh chapter in the second creeper of Taittirya Upanishad) which unequivocally declares the एकः एव ब्रह्मन् ब्रह्माण्डजननस्य मूलकारणम् अस्ति ( ē ka ḥ ē va brahman brahm ā ṇḍ ajananasya mūlakāra ṇ am asti – one and only Brahman is the root cause of cosmogenesis ).   Moreover, it is also cause for the भय अज्ञानबद्धात्मनस्य ( bhaya ajñānabaddhātmanasya – fear of the ignorant bound soul ) as well as the अभय ज्ञानमुक्तात्मनस्य ( abhaya jñānamuktātmanasya – fearlessness of the wise liberated soul ).  Let us first look at the related श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) wherein it is very clearly declared thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
अस॒द् वा इ॒दमग्र॑ आसीत्। ततो॒ वै सद॑जायत। तदात्मानꣴ स्वय॑मकु॒रुत। तस्मात् तत् सुकृतमुच्य॑त इ॒ति। यद् वै॑ तत् सु॒कृतम्। र॑सो वै॒ सः। रसꣴ ह्येवायं लब्ध्वाऽऽन॑न्दी भ॒वति। को ह्येवान्या᳚त् कः प्रा॒ण्यात्। यदेष आकाश आन॑न्दो न॒ स्यात्। एष ह्येवान॑न्दया॒ति। य॒दा ह्ये॑वैष॒ एतस्मिन्नदृश्येऽनात्म्येऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयनेऽभयं प्रति॑ष्ठां वि॒न्दते। अथ सोऽभयं ग॑तो भ॒वति। य॒दा ह्ये॑वैष॒ एतस्मिन्नुदरमन्त॑रं कु॒रुते। अथ तस्य भ॑यं भ॒वति। तत्त्वेव भयं विदुषोऽम॑न्वान॒स्य। तदप्येष श्लो॑को भ॒वति॥	asad vā idamagra āsīt | tato vai sadajāyata |tadātmānaṁ svayamakuruta |tasmāt tatsukṛtamucyata iti |yadvai tatsukṛtam | raso vai saḥ| rasaṁ hyevāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati | ko hyevānyāt kaḥ prāṇyāt | yadeṣa ākāśa ānando na syāt |eṣa hyevānanda yāti |yadā hyevaiṣa etasminnadṛśye'nātmye'nirukte'nilayane'bhayaṁ pratiṣṭhāṁ vindate | atha so'bhayaṁ gato bhavati |yadā hyevaiṣa etasminnudaramantaraṁ kurute |tha tasya bhayaṁ bhavati | tatveva bhayaṁ viduṣo manvānasya |tadapyeṣa śloko bhavati||	In the beginning all this Universe was NonExistent and Unmanifest, from which this manifest Existence was born. Itself created itself; none other created it. Therefore they say of it the well and beautifully made. Lo this that iswell and beautifully made, verily it is no other than the delight behind existence. When he hath gotten him this delight, then it is that this creature becometh a thing of bliss; for who could labour to draw in the breath or who could have strength to breathe it out, if there were not that Bliss in the heaven of his heart, the ether within his being? It is He that is the fountain of bliss; for when the Spirit that is within us findeth his refuge and firm foundation in the Invisible Bodiless Undefinable and Unhoused Eternal, then he hath passed beyond the reach of Fear. But when the Spirit that is within us maketh for himself even a little difference in the Eternal, then he hath fear, yea the Eternal himself becometh a terror to such a knower who thinketh not. Whereof this is the Scripture. -translation by Sri Aurobindo
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad) (2.7.1)

Let us next look at specific extracts from the relevant explanation given by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) in his famous भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ) on the above quoted श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
असद्वा इदमग्र असीत्। असदिति व्याकृतनामरूपविशेषविपरीतरूपमव्याकृतम् ब्रह्मोच्यते। न पुनरत्यन्तमेवासत्। न ह्यस्तः सज्जनमास्ति। इदमिति नामरूपविशेषवद्वचाकृत जगदग्रे पूर्वं प्रागुत्पत्तेर्ब्रह्मेवासच्छचब्दवाच्यमासीत्। ततोऽस्तो वै सात्प्रविभक्तनामरूपविशेषमजायतोतपन्नम्। किं ततः प्रविभक्तं कार्यमिति पितुरिव पुत्रः, नेत्याः। तद्सच्छब्दाच्यं स्वयमेवात्मानमेवाकुरुत कृतवत्। यस्मादेवं तस्माद्ब्रह्मैव सुकृतं स्वयं कर्त्रुर्च्यते। स्वतंकर्तृ ब्रह्मेति प्रसिद्धं लोके सर्वकारणत्वात्। ॥॥ कथमभ्यहेतुत्वमित्युच्यते - यदा हेय्व यस्मादेष साधक एतस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि किंविशिष्टेऽदृश्ये दृष्यं नाम द्रष्टव्यं विकारोदर्शनार्थत्वाद्विकारस्य। नादृश्यमदृश्यम्विकार इत्यर्थः। एतस्मिन् दृश्येऽविकारेऽविषयभूते अनात्मयेऽशरीरे। यस्माददृश्यम् तस्मादनात्म्यं यस्मादनात्म्यं तस्मादनिरुक्तं। विशेषो हे निरुच्यते विशेषश्च विकारः। अविकारं च ब्रह्मा सर्वविकारहेतुत्वात्तस्मादनिरुक्तम्। यत् एवं तस्मादनिलयनं निलयनं नीड आश्रयो न निलयनमनिलयनमन्दाधरं तस्मिन्नेतस्मिन्नदृश्येऽनात्मयेऽनिरुक्तेऽनिलयने सर्वकार्यधर्मविलक्षणे ब्रह्मणिति वक्यार्थः। अभयमिति क्रियाविशेषणम्। अभयमिति वा लिङ्गान्तरं परिणम्यते। प्रथिष्ठां स्थितिमात्मभावं विन्दते लभते। अथ तदा स तस्मिनानात्वस्य भहेतोराविद्याकृतस्यादर्शनादभयं गतो भवति। स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठो ह्यसौ यदा भवति तदा नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति। अन्यस्य ह्यन्यतो भयं भवति नात्मन एवात्मनो भयं युक्तम्। तस्मादात्वैमात्मनोऽभयकारणम्। सर्वतो हि निर्भया ब्राह्मण दर्श्यन्ते सत्सु भयहेतुषु तच्चायुक्तमसति भयत्राणि। तस्मात्तेषामभयदर्शनादस्ति तद्भयकारणं ब्रह्मेति।	asadvā idamagra asīt। asaditi vyākṛtanāmarūpaviśeṣaviparītarūpamavyākṛtam brahmocyate। na punaratyantamevāsat। na hyastaḥ sajjanamāsti। idamiti nāmarūpaviśeṣavadvacākṛta jagadagre pūrvaṃ prāgutpatterbrahmevāsacchacabdavācyamāsīt। tato'sto vai sātpravibhaktanāmarūpaviśeṣamajāyatotapannam। kiṃ tataḥ pravibhaktaṃ kāryamiti pituriva putraḥ, netyāḥ। tadsacchabdācyaṃ svayamevātmānamevākuruta kṛtavat। yasmādevaṃ tasmādbrahmaiva sukṛtaṃ svayaṃ kartrurcyate। svataṃkartṛ brahmeti prasiddhaṃ loke sarvakāraṇatvāt। ॥॥ kathamabhyahetutvamityucyate - yadā heyva yasmādeṣa sādhaka etasminbrahmaṇi kiṃviśiṣṭe'dṛśye dṛṣyaṃ nāma draṣṭavyaṃ vikārodarśanārthatvādvikārasya। nādṛśyamadṛśyamvikāra ityarthaḥ। etasmin dṛśye'vikāre'viṣayabhūte anātmaye'śarīre। yasmādadṛśyam tasmādanātmyaṃ yasmādanātmyaṃ tasmādaniruktaṃ। viśeṣo he nirucyate viśeṣaśca vikāraḥ। avikāraṃ ca brahmā sarvavikārahetutvāttasmādaniruktam। yat evaṃ tasmādanilayanaṃ nilayanaṃ nīḍa āśrayo na nilayanamanilayanamandādharaṃ tasminnetasminnadṛśye'nātmaye'nirukte'nilayane sarvakāryadharmavilakṣaṇe brahmaṇiti vakyārthaḥ। abhayamiti kriyāviśeṣaṇam। abhayamiti vā liṅgāntaraṃ pariṇamyate। prathiṣṭhāṃ sthitimātmabhāvaṃ vindate labhate। atha tadā sa tasminānātvasya bhahetorāvidyākṛtasyādarśanādabhayaṃ gato bhavati। svarūpapratiṣṭho hyasau yadā bhavati tadā nānyatpaśyati nānyacchṛṇoti nānyadvijānāti। anyasya hyanyato bhayaṃ bhavati nātmana evātmano bhayaṃ yuktam। tasmādātvaimātmano'bhayakāraṇam। sarvato hi nirbhayā brāhmaṇa darśyante satsu bhayahetuṣu taccāyuktamasati bhayatrāṇi। tasmātteṣāmabhayadarśanādasti tadbhayakāraṇaṃ brahmeti।	In the beginning this was indeed the unmanifested (Brahman). The unmanifest state of Brahman which is opposed to the manifested state consisting in the distinction of name and form, is here expressed by the term asat. But the absolute non-existent is not meant, for there is no emergence of the existent from the non-existent. The manifested world denoted by the word 'this' and possessed of the distinction of name and form, in the beginning, i.e., prior to creation, was only Brahman called asat. From that unmanifested state, verily emerged sat, which has the distinction of manifestation of name and form. Is the effect wholly different from the cause, just like the som from the father? The answer is given in the negative. That which is called the unmanifested created Itself by Itself. Because it is so, therefore, Brahman is called self-creator. Brahman, being the cause of everything. is well known in the world as the self-creator. ...... How does the Brahman become the cause of fearlessness? This is being explained. When a practicant becomes fearlessly established in this Brahman. i.e., attains the state of absorption in the Self, then, owing to non-perception in It of the diversity that is caused by ignorance and that is the cause of fear, he comes to fearlessness. In Brahman of what sort? Adrisya, i.e. in the invisible (Brahman). Drisya is that which can be seen, i.e., modification, for a modification is intended to be seen. What is not seen is invisible, i.e. devoid of modification (or change). In this changeless, that is to say, in this which is not an object of perception; in this which is bodiless - It is bodiless because It is imperceptible; it is inexpressible because it is bodiless. That which has attributes only can be expressed by speech, and an attribute is indicative of modification, since it is the cause of all modifications. Therefore it is inexpressible. Such being the case It is supportless (anilayanam). Nilayanam means a nest, a shelter. That which is not nilayanam is anilayanam, i.e. supportless. The meaning of the sentence is that when the practicant is (established) in that Brahman that is changeless, bodiless, inexpressible and supportless, and that is free from the distinguishable attributes of entire effects. The word abhayam (fearlessly) qualifies the verb. Otherwise it has to be changed into abhayam in the feminine gender to qualify the noun. When the practicant attains stability, i.e. the nature of the Self, then, on account of his not seeing any diversity which is the product of ignorance and also the cause of fear, he attains fearlessness. When he becomes settled in his true nature, then he does not see anything else, know anything else. Someone becomes afraid of someother one, but it does not stand to reason that the Self should be afraid of the Self. Therefore, the Self alone is the cause of fearlessness of the Self. There are Brahmanas who are seen to be entertaining no fear from any direction, (even) under conditions in which the cause of fear exists. And this would become illogical in case there exists no Brahman who affords protection from fear. Therefore, from the observation of fearlessness in them, the existence of Brahman, who is the cause of that fearlessness, becomes proved. -translation by Sri V. Panoli
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.7.1)

Finally, let us come to the actual अष्टम अनुवाक द्वितीये वल्ल्यां तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः (aṣṭama anuvāka dvitīye vallyāṃ taittirīyopaniṣadaḥ - eighth chapter in the second creeper of Taittirya Upanishad) and the releant extracts from the corresponding शङ्करभाष्य   ( śaṅkarabhāṣya – Shankara’s commentary ) cited by Sri Michael Chandra Cohen  

Please recollect that the scope of the सप्तम अनुवाक द्वितीये वल्ल्यां तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः (saptama  anuvāka dvitīye vallyāṃ taittirīyopaniṣadaḥ - seventh chapter in the second creeper of Taittirya Upanishad) was to establish the एकः एव ब्रह्मन् ब्रह्माण्डजननस्य मूलकारणम् अस्ति ( ē ka ḥ ē va brahman brahm ā ṇḍ ajananasya mūlakāra ṇ am asti – one and only Brahman is the root cause of cosmogenesis ). Moreover, it is also cause of the भय अज्ञानबद्धात्मनस्य ( bhaya ajñānabaddhātmanasya – fear of the ignorant bound soul ) as well as the अभय ज्ञानमुक्तात्मनस्य ( abhaya jñānamuktātmanasya – fearlessness of the wise liberated soul ) .  

Now, here the   अष्टम अनुवाक (aṣṭama anuvāka - eighth chapter) tries to explain the next important topic स्वभाव सम्पूर्नब्रह्मानन्दस्य (svabhāva sampūrnabrahmānandasya paramārthasattve– inherent-nature of absolute bliss in the noumenal realm) and its corresponding manifestation of the same as सापेक्षमाणम् विषयानन्दस्य व्यवहारिकसत्त्वेषु अविद्यामाया (sāpekṣamāṇam viṣayānandasya vyavahārikasattveṣu avidyāmāyā  – relative measure of content-bliss in the phenomenal realms of nescient mystery) which is charecterized by प्रादुस् चरमात्राः अन्य्भवयोग्य स्वतन्त्रस्य (prādus caramātrāḥ anubhavayogya svatantrasya -  apparently varying degrees of experiencable freedom).

#	आनन्दस्य व्याप्तिः (ānandasya vyāptiḥ - scope of bliss)	आन्दस्य पैर्माणम् (āndasya pairmāṇam – measure of bliss)
1	मानुष आनन्दः (mānuṣa ānandaḥ - bliss of humans)	1
2	मनुष्यगन्धर्व आनन्द (manuṣayagandharvaṇāmānandaḥ - bliss of human musician deities)	102
3	देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः (devagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ - bliss of divine-music deities)	104
4	पितृणाम् चिरलोकलोकानमानन्दः (pitṛṇām ciralokalokānamānandaḥ - bliss of manes in the external world)	106
5	आजानाजानां देवानामानन्दः (ājānājānāṃ devānāmānandaḥ - bliss of the heaven born gods)	108
6	कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दाः (karmadevānāṃ devānāmānandāḥ - bliss of the work-gods)	1010
7	देवानामानन्दः (devānāmānandaḥ - bliss of the -gods)	1012
8	इन्द्रस्यानन्दाः (indrasyānandāḥ - bliss of Indra)	1014
9	बृहस्पतेरानन्दः (bṛhaspaterānandaḥ - bliss of Brihaspati)	1016
10	प्रजापतेरानन्दः (prajāpaterānandaḥ - bliss of Prajapati)	1018
11	ब्रह्मणान्दः / हिरण्यगर्भानन्दः (brahmaṇāndaḥ / hiraṇyagarbhānandaḥ - bliss of Brahma / Hiranyagarbha)	1020

Let us now look at what the original  श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)   actually declares here.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
भीषाऽस्माद्वातः पवते। भीषोदेति सूर्यः।भीषाऽस्मादग्निश्चेन्द्रश्च। मृत्युर्धावति पञ्चम इति।सैषाऽऽनन्दस्य मीमांसा भवति।युवा स्यात्साधुयुवाऽध्यायकः। आशिष्ठो दृढिष्ठो बलिष्ठः। तस्येयं पृथिवी सर्वा वित्तस्य पूर्णा स्यात्। स एको मानुष आनन्दाः। ते ये शतं मानुषा आनन्दाः। स एको मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं मनुष्यगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः।स एको देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं देवगन्धर्वाणामानन्दाः।स एकः पितृणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दः।श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य। ते ये शतं पितृणां चिरलोकलोकानामानन्दाः।स एकः आजानजानां देवानामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतम् आजानजानां देवानामानन्दाः।स एकः कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दः। ये कर्मणा देवानपियन्ति। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं कर्मदेवानां देवानामानन्दाः। स एको देवानामानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं देवानामानन्दाः। स एक इन्द्रस्यानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य। ते ये शतमिन्द्रस्यानन्दाः।स एको बृहस्पतेरानन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य।ते ये शतं बृहस्पतेरानन्दाः। स एकः प्रजापतेरानन्दः।श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य। ते ये शतं प्रजापतेरानन्दाः।स एको ब्रह्मण आनन्दः। श्रोत्रियस्य चाकामहतस्य॥ स यश्चायं पुरुषे। यश्चासावादित्ये। स एकः।स य एवंवित्‌। अस्माल्लोकात्प्रेत्य। एतमन्नमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति।एतं प्राणमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति। एतं मनोमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति।एतं विज्ञानमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति। एतमानन्दमयमात्मानमुपसङ्क्रामति।तदप्येष श्लोको भवति॥	bhīṣā'smādvātaḥ pavatē। bhīṣōdēti sūryaḥ।bhīṣā'smādagniścēndraśca। mr̥tyurdhāvati pañcama iti।saiṣā''nandasya mīmāṁsā bhavati।yuvā syātsādhuyuvā'dhyāyakaḥ। āśiṣṭhō dr̥ḍhiṣṭhō baliṣṭhaḥ। tasyēyaṁ pr̥thivī sarvā vittasya pūrṇā syāt। sa ēkō mānuṣa ānandāḥ। tē yē śataṁ mānuṣā ānandāḥ। sa ēkō manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya।tē yē śataṁ manuṣyagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ।sa ēkō dēvagandharvāṇāmānandaḥ। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya।tē yē śataṁ dēvagandharvāṇāmānandāḥ।sa ēkaḥ pitr̥ṇāṁ ciralōkalōkānāmānandaḥ।śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya। tē yē śataṁ pitr̥ṇāṁ ciralōkalōkānāmānandāḥ।sa ēkaḥ ājānajānāṁ dēvānāmānandaḥ। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya।tē yē śatam ājānajānāṁ dēvānāmānandāḥ।sa ēkaḥ karmadēvānāṁ dēvānāmānandaḥ। yē karmaṇā dēvānapiyanti। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya।tē yē śataṁ karmadēvānāṁ dēvānāmānandāḥ। sa ēkō dēvānāmānandaḥ। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya।tē yē śataṁ dēvānāmānandāḥ। sa ēka indrasyānandaḥ। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya। tē yē śatamindrasyānandāḥ।sa ēkō br̥haspatērānandaḥ। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya।tē yē śataṁ br̥haspatērānandāḥ। sa ēkaḥ prajāpatērānandaḥ।śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya। tē yē śataṁ prajāpatērānandāḥ।sa ēkō brahmaṇa ānandaḥ। śrōtriyasya cākāmahatasya॥ sa yaścāyaṁ puruṣē। yaścāsāvādityē। sa ēkaḥ।sa ya ēvaṁvit‌। asmāllōkātprētya। ētamannamayamātmānamupasaṅkrāmati।ētaṁ prāṇamayamātmānamupasaṅkrāmati। ētaṁ manōmayamātmānamupasaṅkrāmati।ētaṁ vijñānamayamātmānamupasaṅkrāmati। ētamānandamayamātmānamupasaṅkrāmati।tadapyēṣa ślōkō bhavati॥	Through the fear of Him the Wind bloweth; through the fear of Him the Sun riseth; through the fear of Him Indra and Agni and Death hasten in their courses. Behold this exposition of the Bliss to which ye shall hearken. Let there be a young man, excellent & lovely in his youth, a great student; let him have fair manners and a most firm heart and great strength of body, and let all this wide earth be full of wealth for his enjoying. That is the measure of bliss of one human being. Now a hundred and a hundredfold of the human measure of bliss, is one bliss of men that have become angels in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of angelic bliss is one bliss of Gods that are angels in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of divine angelic bliss is one bliss of the Fathers whose world of heaven is their world for ever. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of bliss of the Fathers whose worlds are for ever, is one bliss of the Gods who are born as Gods in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of bliss of the firstborn in heaven, is one bliss of the Gods of work who are Gods, for by the strength of their deeds they depart and are Gods in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of bliss of the Gods of work, is one bliss of the great Gods who are Gods for ever. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of divine bliss, is one bliss of Indra, the King in Heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of Indra's bliss is one bliss of Brihaspati, who taught the Gods in heaven. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of Brihaspati's bliss, is one bliss of Prajapati, the Almighty Father. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. A hundred and a hundredfold of this measure of Prajapati's bliss, is one bliss of the Eternal Spirit. And this is the bliss of the Vedawise whose soul the blight of desire not toucheth. The Spirit who is here in a man and the Spirit who is there in the Sun, it is one Spirit and there is no other. He who knoweth this, when he hath gone away from this world, passeth to this Self which is of food; he passeth to this Self which is of Prana; he passeth to this Self which is of Mind; he passeth to this Self which is of Knowledge; he passeth to this Self which is of Bliss. Whereof this is the Scripture.
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad) (2.8.1-5)

     Let us next look at specific extracts from the relevant explanation given by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद ( śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) in his famous भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary) on the above quoted श्रुतिवाक्य ( śrutivākya – scriptural statement) :

Original	Transliteration	Translation
एकत्वपक्षे पुनः सनिमितस्य संसारस्य अविद्याकल्पितत्त्वाददोषः। तैमिरिक दृष्टस्य हि द्वितीयचन्द्रस्य नात्मलाभो नाशो वास्ति। विद्याविद्योस्तद्धर्मतवमिति चेन प्रत्यक्षत्वात्। विवेकाविवेकौ रूपादिवत्प्रत्यक्षावुपलभ्यते अन्तकरणस्थौ। न हि स्वरूपस्य सतो द्रष्टृधर्मत्वम्। अविद्या च स्वानुभवेन रूप्यते मूढोऽहमविविक्तं मम विज्ञानमिति। तथा विद्याविवेकोऽनुभूयते। उपदिशन्ति चान्येभ्य आत्मनो विद्याम्। तथा चान्योऽवधारयन्ति तस्मानामरूपपक्षस्यैव विद्याविद्ये नामरूपे च नात्मधर्मौ। "नामरूपयोर्निर्वहिता ते यदन्तरा तद्ब्रह्म" (छा। उप। ८।१४।१) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्। ते च पुनर्नामरूपे सवितर्यहोरात्रे इव कल्पिते न परमार्तो विद्यमाने। ॥॥। ज्ञानमात्रत्वे चानन्दमयान्तःस्थस्यैव सर्वान्तरसाकाशाद्यन्नमयान्तं कार्य सृष्ट्वानुप्रविष्टस्य हृद्यगुहाभिसंबन्धादन्नमयादिष्वनात्मस्वात्मविभ्रमः संक्रमणेनात्मविवेकविज्ञानोत्पपत्त्या विज्ञश्यति। तदेत्तस्मिन्नविद्याविभ्रमनाशे संक्रमणशब्द उपचर्यते न ह्यन्यथा सर्वगतस्यात्मनः संक्रमणमुपपद्यते। वस्तवन्तराभावाच्च। न च स्वात्मन एव संक्रमणम्। जलूकात्मानमेव संक्रामति। तस्मात्सत्यं ज्ञानमननन्तं ब्रह्मेति। यतोक्तलक्षणात्मप्रप्रतिपत्त्यर्थमेव बहुभवनसर्गप्रवेशरसलाभाभयस्क्रमणादि परिकल्प्यते ब्रह्मणि सर्वव्य्वहारविषये; न तु परमार्थतो निर्विकल्पे ब्रह्मणि कश्चिदपि विकल्प उपपद्यते।	ekatvapakṣe punaḥ sanimitasya saṃsārasya avidyākalpitattvādadoṣaḥ। taimirika dṛṣṭasya hi dvitīyacandrasya nātmalābho nāśo vāsti। vidyāvidyostaddharmatavamiti cena pratyakṣatvāt। vivekāvivekau rūpādivatpratyakṣāvupalabhyate antakaraṇasthau। na hi svarūpasya sato draṣṭṛdharmatvam। avidyā ca svānubhavena rūpyate mūḍho'hamaviviktaṃ mama vijñānamiti। tathā vidyāviveko'nubhūyate। upadiśanti cānyebhya ātmano vidyām। tathā cānyo'vadhārayanti tasmānāmarūpapakṣasyaiva vidyāvidye nāmarūpe ca nātmadharmau। "nāmarūpayornirvahitā te yadantarā tadbrahma" (chā। upa। 8।14।1) iti śrutyantarāt। te ca punarnāmarūpe savitaryahorātre iva kalpite na paramārto vidyamāne। ॥॥। jñānamātratve cānandamayāntaḥsthasyaiva sarvāntarasākāśādyannamayāntaṃ kārya sṛṣṭvānupraviṣṭasya hṛdyaguhābhisaṃbandhādannamayādiṣvanātmasvātmavibhramaḥ saṃkramaṇenātmavivekavijñānotpapattyā vijñaśyati। tadettasminnavidyāvibhramanāśe saṃkramaṇaśabda upacaryate na hyanyathā sarvagatasyātmanaḥ saṃkramaṇamupapadyate। vastavantarābhāvācca। na ca svātmana eva saṃkramaṇam। jalūkātmānameva saṃkrāmati। tasmātsatyaṃ jñānamananantaṃ brahmeti। yatoktalakṣaṇātmaprapratipattyarthameva bahubhavanasargapraveśarasalābhābhayaskramaṇādi parikalpyate brahmaṇi sarvavyvahāraviṣaye; na tu paramārthato nirvikalpe brahmaṇi kaścidapi vikalpa upapadyate।	From the angle of vision of non-duality this (objection) becomes harmless, in as much as the samsara, along with its cause, is a superimposition created by ignorance, There is neither reality nor annihilation of a second moon seen with the eye affected by the disease called timira. If, again, it is held that knowledge and ignrance are the attributes of the Self, it is not correct, for there is their actual perception. Discrimination and non-discrimination, like form etc., are directly percieved as abiding in the mind. The form that is directly percieved cannot be an attribute of the perciever. And ignorance is determined through such experiences as, “I am ignorant”, “My knowledge is not pure”. Similarly, the seperatedness of knowledge (from the Self) is experienced, and the wise impart the knowledge of the Self to others. And so, too, the others understand it. Hence, knowledge and ignorance come under the class of name and form and are not attributes of the Self, as is declared by another Sruti, “(The Self) called space indeed is the revealer of name and form. That in which these two exist is Brahman” (Cha Upa 8.14.1). And these names and forms are imagined to exist in Brahman, like day and night in the sun though truly speaking, they do not exist in It. Thus, if Samkramanam (union / convergence) is meant only as realization, then the delusion in regarding the non-Selves like the body made of food as the Self, is destroyed through samkramanam, i.e. through the dawn of knowledge consisting in the discrimination of the Self (from the non-Self), that is to say, (there stands destroyed) the delusion that results from the contact of the Self with the cavity of the heart, for the Self while seated in the blissful self, pervades everythng, since It, after creating all things beginning from space down to food entered into its creation. The word samkramanam is used metaphorically in respect of this destruction of the delusion caused by ignorance, for in no other way can the reaching of the all-pervading Self be established. Further, there is no other thing (which can reach the Self). Moreover, the reaching is not of oneself, for the leech cannot reach itself. Therefore, it is vitrtually for the realization of the Self which has been described above as “Brahman is truth, knowledge, infinite” (Tai Upa 2.1.1), that all such things as becoming many, reaching etc., have been imagined in Brahman that is the basis of all experiences, but with regard to Brahman that really transcends everything, no such justification becomes justifiable. -translation by Sri V. Panoli
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad taittirīyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.8.5)

On careful observation, it would be clear from the above analysis that no direct or even indirect reference indicating the disputed claim that the ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightend liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world) is made neither by the actual श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement), as revealed by श्री वरुणदेव (śrī varuṇadeva – Lord Varuna Deva) nor its corresponding भाष्य ( bhāṣya – commentary ) as explained by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) while deliberating on the topic of ब्रह्मानन्दव् मीमांसा (brahmānandav mīmāṃsā – divine bliss inquiry). All that is explained is the following:

• एकः एव ब्रह्मन् ब्रह्माण्डजननस्य मूलकारणम् अस्ति ( ē ka ḥ ē va brahman brahm ā ṇḍ ajananasya mūlakāra ṇ am asti – one and only Brahman is the root cause of cosmogenesis )

• स एव ब्रह्मानन्दः स्वातन्त्र्यविविधाभिव्यक्तः ( sa ē va brahm ā nanda ḥ svātantryavividhābhivyakta ḥ - the same divive bliss is expressed in various degrees of freedom )

• स्वभाव सम्पूर्नब्रह्मानन्दस्य (svabhāva sampūrnabrahmānandasya paramārthasattve– inherent-nature of absolute bliss in the noumenal realm) and its corresponding manifestation of the same as सापेक्षमाणम् विषयानन्दस्य व्यवहारिकसत्त्वेषु अविद्यामाया (sāpekṣamāṇam viṣayānandasya vyavahārikasattveṣu avidyāmāyā  – relative measure of content-bliss in the phenomenal realms of nescient mystery)

• भय अज्ञानबद्धात्मनस्य ( bhaya ajñānabaddhātmanasya – fear of the ignorant bound soul )

• अभय ज्ञानमुक्तात्मनस्य ( abhaya jñānamuktātmanasya – fearlessness of the wise liberated soul )

• तथा चान्योऽवधारयन्ति तस्मानामरूपपक्षस्यैव विद्याविद्ये नामरूपे च नात्मधर्मौ ( tathā cānyo'vadhārayanti tasmānāmarūpapakṣasyaiva vidyāvidye nāmarūpe ca nātmadharmau– Hence, knowledge and ignorance come under the class of name and form and are not attributes of the Self)

• प्रथिष्ठां स्थितिमात्मभावं विन्दते लभते। अथ तदा स तस्मिनानात्वस्य भहेतोराविद्याकृतस्यादर्शनादभयं गतो भवति ( prathiṣṭhāṁ sthitimātmabhāvaṁ vindat ē labhat ē । atha tadā sa tasminānātvasya bhah ē t ō r ā vidy ā kr ̥ tasyādarśanādabhayaṁ gat ō bhavati । svarūpapratiṣṭh ō hyasau yad ā bhavati tad ā n ā nyatpa ś yati n ā nyacchr ̥ ṇ ō ti n ā nyadvij ā n ā ti - When the practicant attains stability, i.e. the nature of the Self, then, on account of his not seeing any diversity which is the product of ignorance and also the cause of fear, he attains fearlessness )

• स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठो ह्यसौ यदा भवति तदा नान्यत्पश्यति ( स्वयम् तु ) नान्यच्छृणोति ( स्वयम् तु ) नान्यद्विजानाति ( स्वयम् तु ) ( svarūpapratiṣṭh ō hyasau yad ā bhavati tad ā n ā nyatpa ś yati (svayam tu) n ā nyacchr ̥ ṇ ō ti (svayam tu) n ā nyadvij ā n ā ti (svayam tu) - When he is established in form, he sees nothing else (but himself) nor hears anything else (but himself) nor knows anything else (but himself) )

• ब्रह्म तस्मिन् कल्पितमायाबहुलतायाः सीमां अतिक्रमति ( brahma tasmin kalpitamāyābahulatāyāḥ sīmāṁ atikramati - Brahman transcends the limits of the illusory multiplicity conceived in Him)

Citation 2.1.8: From  श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका  (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā)   (# 4.75)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका  (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.8  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

“ Neither from itself nor from something else is anything born. Neither an existent nor a non-existent … is born ”

    Let us now look at the actual करिका (karikā - verse) provided in the अलातशान्ति प्रकरण (alātaśānti prakaraṇa – firebrand quenching treatise) by the eminent श्री गौडपादचार्य (śrī gauḍapādacārya) as part of his famous   भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ) on the श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad): 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
स्वतो वा परतो वाऽपि न किंचिद्वस्तु जायते । सदसत्सदसद्वाऽपि न किंचिद्वस्तु जायते ॥	svato vā parato vā'pi na kiṃcidvastu jāyate | sadasatsadasadvā'pi na kiṃcidvastu jāyate ||	Nothing, whatsoever, is born either of itself or of another. Nothing is ever produced whether it be being or non-being or both being and non-being. -translation by Swami Nikhilananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā) (4.22)

    Let us next look at specific extracts from the relevant explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above quoted  करिका  (karikā - verse)  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
स्वतः परत उभयतो वा सदसत्सदसद्वा न जायते न तस्य केनचिदपि प्रकारेण जन्म संभवति| न तावत्स्वयमेवापरिनिष्पन्नात्स्वतः स्वरूपात्स्वयमेव जायते यथा घटस्तस्मादेव घटात्| नापि परतोऽन्यस्मादन्यो यथा घटात्पटः पटात्पटान्तरम्| तथा नोभयतः,विरोधात्॑ यथा घटपटाभ्यां घटः पटो वा न जायते| ननु मृदो घटो जायते पितुश्च पुत्रः| सत्यम्, अस्ति जायत इति प्रत्ययः शब्दश्च मूढानाम्| तावेव शब्दप्रत्ययौ विवेकिभिः परीक्ष्येते किं सत्यमेव तावुत मृषेति| यावता परीक्ष्यमाणे शब्दप्रत्यविषयं वस्तु घटपुत्रादिलक्षणं शब्दमात्रमेव तत्| "वाचारम्भणम्"(छा.उ.६| १| ४) इति श्रुतेः| सच्चेन्न जायते सत्त्वान्मृत्पित्रादिवद्| यद्यसत्तथापि न जायतेऽसत्त्वादेव शशविषाणादिवत्| अथ सदसत्तथापि न जायते विरुद्धस्यैकस्यासंभवात्| अतो न किञ्चद्वस्तु जायत इति सिद्धम्|	svataḥ parata ubhayatō vā sadasatsadasadvā na jāyatē na tasya kēnacidapi prakārēṇa janma saṁbhavati| na tāvatsvayamēvāpariniṣpannātsvataḥ svarūpātsvayamēva jāyatē yathā ghaṭastasmādēva ghaṭāt| nāpi paratō'nyasmādanyō yathā ghaṭātpaṭaḥ paṭātpaṭāntaram| tathā nōbhayataḥ,virōdhāt̍ yathā ghaṭapaṭābhyāṁ ghaṭaḥ paṭō vā na jāyatē| nanu mr̥dō ghaṭō jāyatē pituśca putraḥ| satyam, asti jāyata iti pratyayaḥ śabdaśca mūḍhānām| tāvēva śabdapratyayau vivēkibhiḥ parīkṣyētē kiṁ satyamēva tāvuta mr̥ṣēti| yāvatā parīkṣyamāṇē śabdapratyaviṣayaṁ vastu ghaṭaputrādilakṣaṇaṁ śabdamātramēva tat| "vācārambhaṇam"(chā.u.6| 1| 4) iti śrutēḥ| saccēnna jāyatē sattvānmr̥tpitrādivad| yadyasattathāpi na jāyatē'sattvādēva śaśaviṣāṇādivat| atha sadasattathāpi na jāyatē viruddhasyaikasyāsaṁbhavāt| atō na kiñcadvastu jāyata iti siddham|	For this reason, also, nothing whatsoever is born. That which is (supposed to be) born cannot be born of itself, of another or of both. Nothing, whether it be existing or non-existing, or both, is ever born. Of such an entity, birth is not possible in any manner whatsoever. Nothing is born out of itself, i.e., from its own form which in itself has not yet come into existence. A jar cannot be produced from the self-same jar. A thing cannot be born from another thing, which is other than itself, as a jar cannot be produced from another jar, or a piece of cloth from another piece of cloth. Similarly, a thing cannot be born both out of itself and another, as that involves a contradiction. A jar or a piece of cloth cannot be produced by both a jar and a piece of cloth. (Objection)—A jar is produced1 from day, and s son is born of a father. (Reply)—Yes, the deluded use a word like “birth” and have a notion corresponding to the word. Both the word and the notion are examined by men of discrimination who wish to ascertain whether these are true or not. After examination they come to the conclusion that things, such as a jar or a son, etc., denoted by the words and signified by the notions, or mere verbal6, expressions. The Scripture also corroborates it, saying, “All effects are mere names and figures of speech.” If the thing is ever-existent, then it cannot be born again. The very existence is the reason for non-evolution. A father of clay is the illustration to support the contention. If these objects, on the other hand, be non-existent, even then they cannot be said to be produced. The very-non-existence is the reason. The horns of a hare are an illustration. If things be both existent and non-existent, then also, it cannot be born. For, such contradictory ideas cannot be associated with a thing. Therefore it is established that nothing whatsoever is born. Those who, again, assert that the very fact of birth is born again, that the cause, the effect and the act of birth form one-unity, and also that all objects have only momentary existence, maintain a view which is very far from reason. For a thing immediately after being pointed out as “It is this,” ceases to exist and consequently no memory of the thing is possible in the absence of such cognition. -translation by Swami Nikhilananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.22)

     The focus here is on   अजातिवाद  (ajātivāda - doctrine of non-origination) and it  is very clear that the above  करिका  (karikā - verse)  has nothing to do specifically with  ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightened liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world).  Even the corresponding  शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)   does not deal with it.

Citation 2.1.9: From  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad )   (# 4.4.19)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.9 in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

“Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It.”

Let us now look at what the original  श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)   actually declares here. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
मनसैवानुद्रष्टव्यं, नेह नानास्ति किंचन । मृत्योः स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ॥	manasaivānudraṣṭavyaṃ, neha nānāsti kiṃcana | mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyumāpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati ||	Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference[22] whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It. -translation by Swami Madhavananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (4.4.19)

Let us next look at specific extracts from the relevant explanation given by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda) in his famous भाष्य ( bhāṣya - commentary ) on the above quoted श्रुतिवाक्य (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तद्ब्रह्मदर्शने साधनमुच्यते मनसैव परमार्थज्ञानसंसकृतेनाऽचार्योवदेशापूर्वकं चानुद्रष्टव्यम्। तत्र च दर्शनविषये ब्रह्मणि नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन किञ्चिदपु। असति नानात्वे नानात्वमध्यारोपयत्यविद्यया। स मृत्योर्मरणान्मृत्युं मरणमाप्नोति। कोऽसौ। य इह नानेव पश्यति। अविद्याध्यारोपणव्यतिरेकेण नास्ति परमार्थतो द्वैतमित्यर्थः॥	tadbrahmadarśanē sādhanamucyatē manasaiva paramārthajñānasaṁsakr̥tēnā'cāryōvadēśāpūrvakaṁ cānudraṣṭavyam। tatra ca darśanaviṣayē brahmaṇi nēha nānāsti kiñcana kiñcidapu। asati nānātvē nānātvamadhyārōpayatyavidyayā। sa mr̥tyōrmaraṇānmr̥tyuṁ maraṇamāpnōti। kō'sau। ya iha nānēva paśyati। avidyādhyārōpaṇavyatirēkēṇa nāsti paramārthatō dvaitamityarthaḥ॥	The means of the realisation of that Brahman is being described. Through the mind alone, purified by the knowledge of the supreme Truth, and in accordance with the instructions of the teacher, (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It, Brahman, the object of the realisation. Although there is no difference, one superimposes it through ignorance. He gáes from death to death. Who? Who sees difference, as it were, in It. That is to say, really there is no duality apart from the superimposition of ignorance. -translation by Swami Madhavananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.4.19)

     It is very clear that the above  श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)  has nothing to do specifically with  ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightened liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world).  Even the corresponding  शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)   does not deal with it.

Citation 2.1.10: From  श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā)   (# 4.75)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.10  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

“Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It.”

  Let us now look at the actual  करिका  (karikā - verse)   provided in the  अलातशान्ति प्रकरण  (alātaśānti prakaraṇa – firebrand quenching treatise)  by the eminent  श्री गौडपादचार्य  (śrī gauḍapādacārya)   as part of his famous   भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )   on the  श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद्  (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad): 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
अभूताभिनिवेशोऽस्ति द्वयं तत्र न विद्यते । द्वयाभावं स बुद्ध्वैव निर्निमित्तो न जायते ॥	abhūtābhiniveśo'sti dvayaṃ tatra na vidyate | dvayābhāvaṃ sa buddhvaiva nirnimitto na jāyate ||	Man has mere persistent belief in the reality of the unreal (which is duality). There is no duality (corresponding to such belief). One who has realised the absence of duality is never born again as there remains, no longer, any cause (for such birth). -translation by Swami Nikhilananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā ) (4.75)

    Let us next look at specific extracts from the relevant explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above quoted  करिका  (karikā - verse)  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
असत्यभूते द्वैतेऽभिनिवेशोऽस्ति केवलम्। अभिनिवेश आग्रहमात्रम्। द्वयं तत्र न विद्यते। मिथ्याभिनिवेशमात्रं च जन्मनः कारणं यस्मात्तस्माद्द्वयाभावं बुद्ध्वा निर्निमित्तो निवृत्तमिथ्याद्वयाभिनिवेशो यः स न जायते॥	asatyabhūtē dvaitē'bhinivēśō'sti kēvalam। abhinivēśa āgrahamātram। dvayaṁ tatra na vidyatē। mithyābhinivēśamātraṁ ca janmanaḥ kāraṇaṁ yasmāttasmāddvayābhāvaṁ buddhvā nirnimittō nivr̥ttamithyādvayābhinivēśō yaḥ sa na jāyatē॥	As objects are, really speaking, non-existent, therefore people who believe in their existence have, in fact, attachment for duality which is unreal. It is a mere belief in the (existence of) objects which (really speaking) do not exist. There is no duality. The cause of birth is this attachment. Therefore one who has realised the unreality of duality is never born again as he is free from the cause (of birth), viz., attachment to the illusory duality. -translation by Swami Nikhilananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् माण्डुक्योपनिषद् गौडपादकारिका शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad māṇḍukyopaniṣad gauḍapādakārikā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.75)

     The focus here is on   अजातिवाद  (ajātivāda - doctrine of non-origination) and it  is very clear that the above  करिका  (karikā - verse)  has nothing to do specifically with  ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightened liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world).  Even the corresponding  शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)   does not deal with it.

Citation 2.1.11: From  श्रीमद् केनोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad kenopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)   (# 2.4)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् केनोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad kenopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.11  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

“ But in a context where the unconditioned Self is one, there can neither be knowing by oneself not by another ”

    Let us now look at what the original  श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)   actually declares here. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
प्रतिबोधविदितं मतममृतत्वं हि विन्दते । आत्मना विन्दते वीर्यं विद्यया विन्दतेऽमृतम् ॥	pratibōdhaviditaṁ matamamr̥tatvaṁ hi vindatē । ātmanā vindatē vīryaṁ vidyayā vindatē'mr̥tam ॥	(The Brahman) is known well, when it is known as the witness of every state of consciousness; for (by such knowledge) one attains immortality. By his Self he attains strength and by knowledge, immortality.  -translation by Sri S Sitarama Shastri
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् केनोपनिषद् (śrīmad kenopaniṣad) (2.4)

      It would be clear from the above analysis that no direct or even indirect reference indicating the disputed claim that the ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightend liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world) is made in the above quoted   श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement).

    Let us next look at the relevant explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above quoted  श्रुतिवाक्य  (śrutivākya – scriptural statement):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
प्रतिबोधविदितं बोधं बोधं प्रति विदितम् । बोधशब्देन बौद्धाः प्रत्यया उच्यन्ते । सर्वे प्रत्यया विषयीभवन्ति यस्य, स आत्मा सर्वबोधान्प्रतिबुध्यते सर्वप्रत्ययदर्शी चिच्छक्तिस्वरूपमात्रः प्रत्ययैरेव प्रत्ययेष्वविशिष्टतया लक्ष्यते ; नान्यद्द्वारमन्तरात्मनो विज्ञानाय । अतः प्रत्ययप्रत्यगात्मतया विदितं ब्रह्म यदा, तदा तत् मतं तत्सम्यग्दर्शनमित्यर्थः सर्वप्रत्ययदर्शित्वे चोपजननापायवर्जितदृक्स्वरूपता नित्यत्वं विशुद्धस्वरूपत्वमात्मत्वं निर्विशेषतैकत्वं च सर्वभूतेषु सिद्धं भवेत् , लक्षणभेदाभावाद्व्योन्न इव घटगिरिगुहादिषु । विदिताविदिताभ्यामन्यद्ब्रह्मेत्यागमवाक्यार्थ एवं परिशुद्ध एवोपसंहृतो भवति । ‘दृष्टेद्रष्टा श्रुतेः श्रोता मतेर्मन्ता विज्ञातेर्विज्ञाता’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ४ । २) इति हि श्रुत्यन्तरम् । यदा पुनर्बोधक्रियाकर्तेति बोधक्रियालक्षणेन तत्कर्तारं विजानातीति बोधलक्षणेन विदितं प्रतिबोधविदितमिति व्याख्यायते, यथा यो वृक्षशाखाश्चालयति स वायुरिति तद्वत् ; तदा बोधक्रियाशक्तिमानात्मा द्रव्यम् , न बोधस्वरूप एव । बोधस्तु जायते विनश्यति च । यदा बोधो जायते, तदा बोधक्रियया सविशेषः । यदा बोधो नश्यति, तदा नष्टबोधो द्रव्यमात्रं निर्विशेषः । तत्रैवं सति विक्रियात्मकः सावयवोऽनित्योऽशुद्ध इत्यादयो दोषा न परिहर्तुं शक्यन्ते । ... यत्पुनः स्वसंवेद्यता प्रतिबोधविदित्यस्य वाक्यस्यार्थो वर्ण्यते, तत्र भवति सोपाधिकत्वे आत्मनो बुद्ध्युपाधिस्वरूपत्वेन भेदं परिकल्प्यात्मनात्मानं वेत्तीति संव्यवहारः — ‘आत्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । २३) ‘स्वयमेवात्मनात्मानं वेत्थ त्वं पुरुषोत्तम’ (भ. गी. १० । १५) इति । न तु निरुपाधिकस्यात्मन एकत्वे स्वसंवेद्यता परसंवेद्यता वा सम्भवति । संवेदनस्वरूपत्वात्संवेदनान्तरापेक्षा च न सम्भवति, यथा प्रकाशस्य प्रकाशान्तरापेक्षाया न सम्भवः तद्वत् ।	pratibōdhaviditaṁ bōdhaṁ bōdhaṁ prati viditam । bōdhaśabdēna bauddhāḥ pratyayā ucyantē । sarvē pratyayā viṣayībhavanti yasya, sa ātmā sarvabōdhānpratibudhyatē sarvapratyayadarśī cicchaktisvarūpamātraḥ pratyayairēva pratyayēṣvaviśiṣṭatayā lakṣyatē ; nānyaddvāramantarātmanō vijñānāya । ataḥ pratyayapratyagātmatayā viditaṁ brahma yadā, tadā tat mataṁ tatsamyagdarśanamityarthaḥ sarvapratyayadarśitvē cōpajananāpāyavarjitadr̥ksvarūpatā nityatvaṁ viśuddhasvarūpatvamātmatvaṁ nirviśēṣataikatvaṁ ca sarvabhūtēṣu siddhaṁ bhavēt , lakṣaṇabhēdābhāvādvyōnna iva ghaṭagiriguhādiṣu । viditāviditābhyāmanyadbrahmētyāgamavākyārtha ēvaṁ pariśuddha ēvōpasaṁhr̥tō bhavati । ‘dr̥ṣṭēdraṣṭā śrutēḥ śrōtā matērmantā vijñātērvijñātā' (br̥. u. 3 । 4 । 2) iti hi śrutyantaram । yadā punarbōdhakriyākartēti bōdhakriyālakṣaṇēna tatkartāraṁ vijānātīti bōdhalakṣaṇēna viditaṁ pratibōdhaviditamiti vyākhyāyatē, yathā yō vr̥kṣaśākhāścālayati sa vāyuriti tadvat ; tadā bōdhakriyāśaktimānātmā dravyam , na bōdhasvarūpa ēva । bōdhastu jāyatē vinaśyati ca । yadā bōdhō jāyatē, tadā bōdhakriyayā saviśēṣaḥ । yadā bōdhō naśyati, tadā naṣṭabōdhō dravyamātraṁ nirviśēṣaḥ । tatraivaṁ sati vikriyātmakaḥ sāvayavō'nityō'śuddha ityādayō dōṣā na parihartuṁ śakyantē । ... yatpunaḥ svasaṁvēdyatā pratibōdhavidityasya vākyasyārthō varṇyatē, tatra bhavati sōpādhikatvē ātmanō buddhyupādhisvarūpatvēna bhēdaṁ parikalpyātmanātmānaṁ vēttīti saṁvyavahāraḥ — ‘ātmanyēvātmānaṁ paśyati' (br̥. u. 4 । 4 । 23) ‘svayamēvātmanātmānaṁ vēttha tvaṁ puruṣōttama' (bha. gī. 10 । 15) iti । na tu nirupādhikasyātmana ēkatvē svasaṁvēdyatā parasaṁvēdyatā vā sambhavati । saṁvēdanasvarūpatvātsaṁvēdanāntarāpēkṣā ca na sambhavati, yathā prakāśasya prakāśāntarāpēkṣāyā na sambhavaḥ tadvat ।	‘Pratibodhaviditam’ means ‘known in respect of every state of consciousness.’ By the word ‘bodha’ is meant ‘mental perception.’ That by which all states of consciousness are perceived like objects is the Atman. He knows and sees all states of consciousness, being by nature nothing but intelligence and is indicated by these states of consciousness, as blended with every one of them. There is no other way by which the inner Atman could be known. Therefore when the Brahman is known as the witness of all states of consciousness, then it is known well. Being the witness of all states of consciousness, it will he clear that it is intelligence in its essence, subject to neither birth nor death, eternal, pure, unconditioned, and one in all things, because there is no difference in its essence, just as in the essence of the Akas, in a vessel or mountain cave, etc. The drift of the passage from the Agamas [traditions] is that the Brahman is other than both the known and the unknown. It is this pure Atman that will be described at the close of the Upanishad. Another Sruti says “He is the seer of the eye, the hearer of the ear, the thinker of thought, and the knower of knowledge.” But some explain the expression ‘Pratibodhaviditam’ in the text as meaning ‘known by its defining attribute of knowledge,’ on the view that Brahman is the author of the act of knowing and that Brahman as such author is known by its activity in knowing,’ just as the wind is known as that which shakes the branches of the trees. In this view the Atman is an unintelligent substance having the power to know and not intelligence itself. Consciousness is produced and is destroyed. When consciousness is produced, then the Atman is associated with it; but when it is destroyed, the Atman, dissociated from consciousness, becomes a mere unintelligent substance. Such being the case, it is not possible to get over the objection that the Atman is rendered changeable in its nature, composed of parts, transient, impure, etc. ... Some, however, explain that the drift of this portion of the text is that the Atman is knowable by itself. There the Atman is thought of as conditioned and people talk of knowing the Atman by the Atman, distinguishing as it were, the unconditioned Atman from the Atman conditioned by intelligence, etc. Thus it has been said “He sees the Atman by the Atman” and “O Best of men! know the Atman by the Atman, thyself.” It is clear that the unconditioned Atman, being one, is not capable of being known either by itself or by others. Being itself the knowing principle, it cannot stand in need of another knowing principle; just as one light cannot possibly require another light. So here. -translation by Sri S Sitarama Shastri
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् केनोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad kenopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.4)

     Here too, it is evident that the भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra – commentator) does not claim that the ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightend liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world).   In fact, on the other hand, He “ सर्वे प्रत्यया विषयीभवन्ति यस्य , स आत्मा सर्वबोधान्प्रतिबुध्यते सर्वप्रत्ययदर्शी चिच्छक्तिस्वरूपमात्रः प्रत्ययैरेव प्रत्ययेष्वविशिष्टतया लक्ष्यते ; नान्यद्द्वारमन्तरात्मनो विज्ञानाय ( sarv ē pratyay ā viṣayībhavanti yasya, sa ātmā sarvab ō dh ā npratibudhyat ē sarvapratyayadar śī cicchaktisvar ū pam ā traḥ pratyayair ē va pratyay ē ṣvaviśiṣṭatayā lakṣyat ē ; n ā nyaddv ā ramantar ā tman ō vijñānāya - That by which all states of consciousness are perceived like objects is the Atman. He knows and sees all states of consciousness, being by nature nothing but intelligence and is indicated by these states of consciousness, as blended with every one of them ).”

Citation 2.1.12: From  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)   (# 2.4.14)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.12  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

"For when there is duality, as it were, then one… knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one …know and through what? "

       Let us now look at what the original  श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement)   actually declares here.  It forms  part of a famous dialogue between श्री याज्ञवल्कय महऋषि (śrī yājñavalkaya mahaṛṣi) and श्रीमति मैत्रेयी (śrīmati maitreyī) , who was his धर्मपत्नी (dharmapatnī – pious wife). Here, the former explains thus to a question of the latter.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
स होवाच मैत्रेयी, अत्रैव मा भगवानमूमुहत्, न प्रेत्य संज्णास्तीति; स होवाच न व अरे'हम् मोहं ब्रवीमि, अलं वा अरे इदं विज्ञानाय ॥ यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं जिघ्रति, तदितर इतरं पश्यति, तदितर इतरम् श्र्णोति, तदितर इतरमभिवदति, तदितर इतरम् मनुते, तदितर इतरं विजानाति; यत्र वा अस्य सर्वमात्माइवाभूत्तत्केन कं जिघ्रेत्, तत्केन कं पश्येत्, तत्केन कं शृणुयत्, तत्केन कमभिवदेत्, तत्केन कं मन्वीत, तत्केन कं विजानीयात्? येनेदम् सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्? विज्ञातारम् अरे केन विजानीयादिति॥	sa hovāca maitreyī, atraiva mā bhagavānamūmuhat, na pretya saṃjṇāstīti; sa hovāca na va are'ham mohaṃ bravīmi, alaṃ vā are idaṃ vijñānāya || yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraṃ jighrati, taditara itaraṃ paśyati, taditara itaram śrṇoti, taditara itaramabhivadati, taditara itaram manute, taditara itaraṃ vijānāti; yatra vā asya sarvamātmāivābhūttatkena kaṃ jighret, tatkena kaṃ paśyet, tatkena kaṃ śṛṇuyat, tatkena kamabhivadet, tatkena kaṃ manvīta, tatkena kaṃ vijānīyāt? yenedam sarvaṃ vijānāti, taṃ kena vijānīyāt? vijñātāram are kena vijānīyāditi ||	Maitreyī said, ‘Just here you have thrown me into confusion, sir—by saying that after attaining (oneness) the self has no more consciousness.’ Yājñavalkya said, ‘Certainly I am not saying anything confusing, my dear; this is quite sufficient for knowledge, O Maitreyī.’ Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known—through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the Knower? -translation by Sri Swami Sri Madhavananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (2.4.13,14)

  It would be clear from the above analysis that no direct or even indirect reference indicating the disputed claim that the  ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightened liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world)  is made in the above quoted   श्रुतिवाक्य   (śrutivākya – scriptural statement).

    Let us next look at the relevant explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above quoted  श्रुतिवाक्य  (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) (2.4.13)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सा ह किलोवाचोत्त्कवती मैत्रेयीअत्रैव एतस्मित्रेव एकस्मिन्वस्तुनि ब्रह्मणि विरुद्वधर्मवत्तवमाचक्षणेन भगवता मम मोह कृतः॑तदाहअत्रैव मा भगवान्पूजावानमूमुहन्मोहं कृतचान्| कथं तेन विरुद्वधर्मवत्त्वमुत्कमित्युच्यतेपूर्व विज्ञानघन एवेति प्रतिशाय पुनर्न प्रेत्य संशास्तीति॑कथं विज्ञानघन एव? कथं वा न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्तीति? न ह्युष्णः शीतश्चाग्निरेवैको भवति| अतो मूढास्म्यत्र| स होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यःन वा अरे मैत्रेय्यहं मोहं ब्रवीमि मोहनं वाक्यं न ब्रवीमित्यर्थः| ननु कथं विरुद्वधर्मत्वमवोचःविज्ञान घनं संज्ञाभावं च ? न मयेदमेकस्मिन्वमिंण्यमिहितम्, त्वयैवेदं विरुद्वधर्मत्वेनैकं वस्तु परिगृहीतं भ्रान्त्या, न तु मयोत्त्कम्| मया त्विदमुत्त्कम्यस्त्वविद्याप्रत्युपस्यापितःकार्यकरणसम्बन्धी आत्मनः खिल्यभावः, यस्मिन्विद्यया नाशिते, तन्निमित्ता या विशेषसंज्ञा शरीरादिसम्बन्धिनी अन्यत्वदर्शनलक्षणा, सा कार्यकरणसङ्घातोपाधौ प्रविलापिते नश्यति त्वभावादुदकाद्याधारनाशादिव चन्द्रादिप्रतिबिम्ब स्तन्निमित्तश्च प्रकाशादिः॑ न पुनः परमार्थचन्द्रादित्यस्वरूपानाशवदसंसारिब्रह्मस्वरूपस्य विज्ञानघनस्य नाशः॑ तद्विज्ञाघन इत्युत्त्कम्॑ स आत्मा सर्वस्य जगतः, परमार्थतो भूतनाशान्न विनाशी| विनाशी त्वविद्यकृतः खिल्यभावः,"वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्"(छा० उ० ६|१|४) इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्| अयं तु पारमार्थिकःविनाशी वा अरेऽयमात्मा, अतोऽलं पर्याप्तं वै अरे इदं महद्भूतमनन्तमपारं य याव्याख्यातं विज्ञानाय विज्ञातुम्|	sā ha kilōvācōttkavatī maitrēyīatraiva ētasmitrēva ēkasminvastuni brahmaṇi virudvadharmavattavamācakṣaṇēna bhagavatā mama mōha kr̥taḥ̍tadāhaatraiva mā bhagavānpūjāvānamūmuhanmōhaṁ kr̥tacān| kathaṁ tēna virudvadharmavattvamutkamityucyatēpūrva vijñānaghana ēvēti pratiśāya punarna prētya saṁśāstīti̍kathaṁ vijñānaghana ēva? kathaṁ vā na prētya saṁjñāstīti? na hyuṣṇaḥ śītaścāgnirēvaikō bhavati| atō mūḍhāsmyatra| sa hōvāca yājñavalkyaḥna vā arē maitrēyyahaṁ mōhaṁ bravīmi mōhanaṁ vākyaṁ na bravīmityarthaḥ| nanu kathaṁ virudvadharmatvamavōcaḥvijñāna ghanaṁ saṁjñābhāvaṁ ca ? na mayēdamēkasminvamiṁṇyamihitam, tvayaivēdaṁ virudvadharmatvēnaikaṁ vastu parigr̥hītaṁ bhrāntyā, na tu mayōttkam| mayā tvidamuttkamyastvavidyāpratyupasyāpitaḥkāryakaraṇasambandhī ātmanaḥ khilyabhāvaḥ, yasminvidyayā nāśitē, tannimittā yā viśēṣasaṁjñā śarīrādisambandhinī anyatvadarśanalakṣaṇā, sā kāryakaraṇasaṅghātōpādhau pravilāpitē naśyati tvabhāvādudakādyādhāranāśādiva candrādipratibimba stannimittaśca prakāśādiḥ̍ na punaḥ paramārthacandrādityasvarūpānāśavadasaṁsāribrahmasvarūpasya vijñānaghanasya nāśaḥ̍ tadvijñāghana ityuttkam̍ sa ātmā sarvasya jagataḥ, paramārthatō bhūtanāśānna vināśī| vināśī tvavidyakr̥taḥ khilyabhāvaḥ,"vācārambhaṇaṁ vikārō nāmadhēyam"(chā0 u0 6|1|4) iti śrutyantarāt| ayaṁ tu pāramārthikaḥvināśī vā arē'yamātmā, atō'laṁ paryāptaṁ vai arē idaṁ mahadbhūtamanantamapāraṁ ya yāvyākhyātaṁ vijñānāya vijñātum|	Thus enlightened, Maitreyī said, ‘By attributing contradictory qualities just here, to this identical entity, Brahman, you have thrown me into confusion, revered sir.’ So she says, ‘Just here,’ etc. How he attributed contradictory qualities is being explained: ‘Having first stated that the self is but Pure Intelligence, you now say that after attaining (oneness) it has no more consciousness. How can it be only Pure Intelligence, and yet after attaining oneness have no more consciousness? The same fire cannot both be hot and cold. So I am confused ön this point.’ Yājñavalkya said, ‘O Maitreyī, certainly I am not saying anything confusing, i.e. not using confusing language.’ Maitreyī: Why did yon mention contradictory qualities—Pure Intelligence and, again, absence of consciousness? Yājñavalkya: I did not attribute them to the same entity. It is you who through a mistake have taken one and the same entity to be possessed of contradictory attributes. I did not say this. What I said was this: When the individual existence of the self that is superimposed by ignorance and is connected with the body and organs is destroyed by knowledge, the particular consciousness connected with the body etc., consisting of a false notion, is destroyed on the destruction of the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs, for they are deprived of their cause, just as the reflections of the moon etc., and their effects, the light and so forth, vanish when the water and the like, which form their support, are gone. But just as the sun, moon, etc., which are the realities behind the reflections, remain as they are, so that Pure Intelligence which is the transcendent Brahman remains unchanged. That has been referred to as ‘Pure Intelligence.’ It is the Self of the whole universe, and does not really pass out with the destruction of the elements. But the individual existence, which is due to ignorance, is destroyed. ‘Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech,’ says another Śruti (Ch. VI. i. 4-6 and iv. 1-4). But this is real. ‘This self, my dear, is indestructible’ (IV. v. 14). Therefore this ‘great, endless, infinite Reality’—already explained (par. 12) —is quite sufficient for knowledge, Maitreyī. Later it will be said, ‘For the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost; because it is immortal’ (IV. iii. 30). -translation by Sri Swami Sri Madhavananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.4.13)

    What is emphasized here by the भाष्यकार (bhāṣyakāra – commentator) clarifies that बोधप्राप्तेः अनन्तरं एते विलक्षणभेदाः केवलं नामरूपेण एव सन्ति इति बोधेन सह शारीरिकरूपेण बद्धव्यक्तित्वस्य भ्रमात्मका आच्छादितसंज्ञा निष्कासिता भवति ( b ō dhapr ā pt ē ḥ anantara ṁ ē t ē vilakṣa ṇ abh ē d ā ḥ k ē vala ṁ nāmarūp ē ṇ a ē va santi iti b ō dh ē na saha śā r ī rikar ū p ē ṇ a baddhavyaktitvasya bhramātmakā ācchāditasa ṁ jñā niṣkāsitā bhavati – After enlightenment is achieved, the illusory overlapping notion of physically bound personality is removed with the realization that these fantastic differences exist only in name & form ).

In fact, even the triangular epistemological relationship between the ज्ञातृ (jñātṛ - knower), ज्ञेय (jñeya - knowing) and the ज्ञात (jñāta - known) merged into the निरपेक्ष अद्वैतकैवल्यम् एकैकस्य आत्मनः (nirapekṣa advaitakaivalyam ekaikasya ātmanaḥ – absolute nondualistic singularity) wherein there is neither the व्यक्तिगतरूपेण काम्य कर्तृत्वम् (vyaktigata kartṛtva – personally desirable doership) nor even व्यक्तिगतरूपेण काम्य भोक्तृत्व (vyaktigata kartṛtva bhoktṛtva – personally desirable enjoyership) but rather only the अवैयक्तिक साक्षिन् ज्ञातृत्व (avaiyaktika sākṣin jñātṛtva – impersoanlly witnessing knowership).

 Let us finally look at the relevant explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above quoted  श्रुतिवाक्य  (śrutivākya – scriptural statement) (2.4.14)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
कथं तर्हि प्रेत्य संज्ञा नास्तीत्युच्यते| शृणु| यत्र यस्मिन्नविद्याकल्पिते कार्यकरणसंघातोपाधिजनिते विशेषात्मनि खिल्यभावे हि यस्मादद्द्वैतमिव पारमार्थतोऽद्वैते ब्रह्मणि द्वैतमिव भिन्नमिव वस्त्वन्तरमात्मन उपलक्ष्यते| ननु द्वैतेनोपमीयमानत्वाद्द्वैतस्य पारमार्थिकत्वमिति| न| ऽवाचाऽरम्भणं विकारो नामधेयमिऽति श्रुत्यन्तराऽदेकमेवाऽद्वितीयमात्मैवेदं सर्वामिति च| तत्तत्र यस्माद्द्वैतमिव तस्मादेवेतरोऽसौ परमात्मनः खिल्यभूत आत्मापरमार्थश्चन्द्रोदेरिवोदकचन्द्रादिप्रतिबिम्ब इतरो घ्रातेतरेण ध्राणेनेतरं घ्रातव्यं जिघ्रति| इतर इतरमिति कारकप्रदर्शनार्थं जिघ्रतीति क्रियाफलयोरभिधानम्| यथा छिन्त्तीति यथोद्यम्योद्यम्य निपातनं छेदस्य च द्वैधीभाव उभयं छिनत्तीत्येकेनैव शब्देनाभिधीयते क्रियावसानत्वात्क्रियाव्यतिरेकेण च तत्फलस्यानुपलम्भात्| इतरो घ्राणेतरेण घ्राणेनेतरं घ्रतव्यं जिघ्रति तथा सर्वं पूर्ववद्विजानाति| इयमविद्यावदवस्था| यत्र तु ब्रह्मविद्ययाविद्या नाशमुपगमिता तत्राऽत्मव्यतिरेकेणान्यस्याभावः| यत्र वा अस्य ब्रह्मविदः सर्वं नामरूपाद्यात्मन्येव प्रविलापितमात्मैव संवृत्तं यत्रैवमात्मैवाभूत्तत्र केन करणेन कं ध्रातव्यं को जिघ्रेत्तथा पश्योद्विजानीयात्| सर्वत्र हि कारकसाध्या क्रिया| अतः कारकाभावेऽनुपपत्तिः क्रियायाः क्रियाभावे च फलाभावः| तस्मादविद्यायामेव सत्यां क्रियाकारकफलव्यवहारो न ब्रह्मविदः| आत्मत्वादेव सर्वस्य नाऽत्मव्यतिरेकेण कारकं क्रियाफलं वास्ति| नचानात्मा सन्सर्वमात्मैव भवति कस्यचित्| तस्मादविद्ययैवानात्त्मत्वं परिकल्पितं न तु परमार्थत आत्मव्यतिरेकेणास्ति किञ्चित्| तस्मात्परमार्थात्मैकत्वप्रत्यये क्रियाकारकफलप्रत्ययानुपपत्तिः| अतो विरोधाद्ब्रह्मविदः क्रियाणां तत्साधनानां चान्त्यन्तमेव निवृत्तिः| केन किमिति क्षेपार्थं वचनं प्रकारान्तरानुपपत्तिदर्शनार्थम्| केनचिदपि प्रकारेण क्रियाकरणादिकारकानुपपत्तेः| केनत्चित्कञ्चित्काश्चित्कथं चिन्न जिव्रेदेवेत्यर्थः| यत्राप्यविद्यावस्थायामन्योऽन्यं पश्यति तत्रापि येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति तं केन विजानीयाद्येन विजानाति तस्य करणस्य विज्ञेये विनियुक्तत्वात्| ज्ञातुश्व ज्ञेय एव हि जिज्ञासा नाऽत्मनि| न चाग्नेरिवाऽत्माऽत्मनो विषयो न चाविषये ज्ञातुर्ज्ञानमुपपद्यते। तस्माद्येनेदं विजानाति तं विज्ञातारं केन करणेन को वान्यो विजानीयात्| यदा तु पुनः परमार्थविवेकिनो ब्रह्मविदो विज्ञातैव केवलोऽद्वयो वर्तते तं विज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयादिति ॥	kathaṁ tarhi prētya saṁjñā nāstītyucyatē| śr̥ṇu| yatra yasminnavidyākalpitē kāryakaraṇasaṁghātōpādhijanitē viśēṣātmani khilyabhāvē hi yasmādaddvaitamiva pāramārthatō'dvaitē brahmaṇi dvaitamiva bhinnamiva vastvantaramātmana upalakṣyatē| nanu dvaitēnōpamīyamānatvāddvaitasya pāramārthikatvamiti| na| 'vācā'rambhaṇaṁ vikārō nāmadhēyami'ti śrutyantarā'dēkamēvā'dvitīyamātmaivēdaṁ sarvāmiti ca| tattatra yasmāddvaitamiva tasmādēvētarō'sau paramātmanaḥ khilyabhūta ātmāparamārthaścandrōdērivōdakacandrādipratibimba itarō ghrātētarēṇa dhrāṇēnētaraṁ ghrātavyaṁ jighrati| itara itaramiti kārakapradarśanārthaṁ jighratīti kriyāphalayōrabhidhānam| yathā chinttīti yathōdyamyōdyamya nipātanaṁ chēdasya ca dvaidhībhāva ubhayaṁ chinattītyēkēnaiva śabdēnābhidhīyatē kriyāvasānatvātkriyāvyatirēkēṇa ca tatphalasyānupalambhāt| itarō ghrāṇētarēṇa ghrāṇēnētaraṁ ghratavyaṁ jighrati tathā sarvaṁ pūrvavadvijānāti| iyamavidyāvadavasthā| yatra tu brahmavidyayāvidyā nāśamupagamitā tatrā'tmavyatirēkēṇānyasyābhāvaḥ| yatra vā asya brahmavidaḥ sarvaṁ nāmarūpādyātmanyēva pravilāpitamātmaiva saṁvr̥ttaṁ yatraivamātmaivābhūttatra kēna karaṇēna kaṁ dhrātavyaṁ kō jighrēttathā paśyōdvijānīyāt| sarvatra hi kārakasādhyā kriyā| ataḥ kārakābhāvē'nupapattiḥ kriyāyāḥ kriyābhāvē ca phalābhāvaḥ| tasmādavidyāyāmēva satyāṁ kriyākārakaphalavyavahārō na brahmavidaḥ| ātmatvādēva sarvasya nā'tmavyatirēkēṇa kārakaṁ kriyāphalaṁ vāsti| nacānātmā sansarvamātmaiva bhavati kasyacit| tasmādavidyayaivānāttmatvaṁ parikalpitaṁ na tu paramārthata ātmavyatirēkēṇāsti kiñcit| tasmātparamārthātmaikatvapratyayē kriyākārakaphalapratyayānupapattiḥ| atō virōdhādbrahmavidaḥ kriyāṇāṁ tatsādhanānāṁ cāntyantamēva nivr̥ttiḥ| kēna kimiti kṣēpārthaṁ vacanaṁ prakārāntarānupapattidarśanārtham| kēnacidapi prakārēṇa kriyākaraṇādikārakānupapattēḥ| kēnatcitkañcitkāścitkathaṁ cinna jivrēdēvētyarthaḥ| yatrāpyavidyāvasthāyāmanyō'nyaṁ paśyati tatrāpi yēnēdaṁ sarvaṁ vijānāti taṁ kēna vijānīyādyēna vijānāti tasya karaṇasya vijñēyē viniyuktatvāt| jñātuśva jñēya ēva hi jijñāsā nā'tmani| na cāgnērivā'tmā'tmanō viṣayō na cāviṣayē jñāturjñānamupapadyatē। tasmādyēnēdaṁ vijānāti taṁ vijñātāraṁ kēna karaṇēna kō vānyō vijānīyāt| yadā tu punaḥ paramārthavivēkinō brahmavidō vijñātaiva kēvalō'dvayō vartatē taṁ vijñātāramarē kēna vijānīyāditi॥	Why then is it said that after attaining oneness the self has no more consciousness? Listen. Because when, i.e. in the presence of the particular or individual aspect of the Self due to the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs conjured up by ignorance, there is duality, as it were, in Brahman, which really is one without a second, i.e. there appears to be something different from the Self. Objection: Since duality is put forward as an object for comparison, is it not taken to be real? Reply: No, tor another Śruti says, ‘Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech’ (Ch. VI. i. 4-6 and iv. 1-4), also ‘One only without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1), and ‘All this is but the Self’ (Ch. VII. XXV. 2). Then, just because there is- duality as it were, therefore one, he who smells, viz. the unreal individual aspect of the Supreme Self, comparable to the reflection of the moon etc. in water, smells something that can be smelt, through something else, viz. the nose. ‘One’ and ‘something’ refer to two typical factors of an action, the agent and object, and ‘smells' signifies the action and its result. As for instance in the word 'cuts.' This one word signifies the repeated strokes dealt and the separation of the object cut into two ; for an action ends in a result, and the result cannot be perceived apart from the action. Similarly he who smells a thing that can be smelt does it through the nose. The rest is to be explained as above. One knows something. Why then is it said that after attaining oneness the self has no more consciousness? Listen. Because when, i.e. in the presence of the particular or individual aspect of the Self due to the limiting adjuncts of the body and organs conjured up by ignorance, there is duality, as it were, in Brahman, which really is one without a second, i.e. there appears to be something different from the Self. Objection: Since duality is put forward as an object for comparison, is it not taken to be real? Reply: No, tor another Śruti says, ‘Modifications are but names, a mere effort of speech’ (Ch. VI. i. 4-6 and iv. 1-4), also ‘One only without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1), and ‘All this is but the Self’ (Ch. VII. XXV. 2). Then, just because there is- duality as it were, therefore one, he who smells, viz. the unreal individual aspect of the Supreme Self, comparable to the reflection of the moon etc. in water, smells something that can be smelt, through something else, viz. the nose. ‘One’ and ‘something’ refer to two typical factors of an action, the agent and object, and ‘smells' signifies the action and its result. As for instance in the word 'cuts.' This one word signifies the repeated strokes dealt and the separation of the object cut into two ; for an action ends in a result, and the result cannot be perceived apart from the action. Similarly he who smells a thing that can be smelt does it through the nose. The rest is to be explained as above. One knows something. This is the state of ignorance. But when ignorance has been destroyed by the knowledge of Brahman, there is nothing but the Self. When to the knower of Brahman everything such as name and form has been merged in the Self and has thus become the Self, then what object to be smelt should one smell, who should smell, and through what instrument? Similarly what should one see and hear? Everywhere an action depends on certain factors; hence when these are absent, the action cannot take place; and in the absence of an action there can be no result. Therefore so long as there is ignorance, the operation of actions, their factors and their results can take place, but not in the case of a knower of Brahman. For to him everything is the Self, and there are no factors or results of actions apart from It. Nor can the universe, being an unreality, be the Self of anybody. Therefore it is ignorance that conjures up the idea of the ncn-Self; strictly speaking, there is nothing but the Self. Therefore when one truly realises the unity of the Self, there cannot be any consciousness of actions, their factors and their results. Hence, because of contradiction, there is an utter absence of actions and their means for the knower of Brahman. The words ‘what’ and ‘through what’ are meant as a fling, and suggest the sheer impossibility of the other factors of an action also; for there cannot possibly be any factors such as the instrument. The idea is that no one by any means can smell anything in any manner. Even in the state of ignorance, when one sees something, through what instrument should one know That owing to which all this is known? For that instrument of knowledge itself falls under the category of objects. The knower may desire to know not about itself, but about objects. As fire does not burn itself, so the self does not know itself, and the knower can have no knowledge of a thing that is not its object. Therefore through what instrument should one know the knower owing to which this universe is known, and who else should know it? And when to the knower of Brahman who has discriminated the Real from the unreal there remains only the subject, absolute and one without a second, through what instrument, O Maitreyī, should one know that Knower? -translation by Sri Swami Sri Madhavananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.4.14)

Finally, before moving on, I would like to quote here some relevant verses of  श्री सुरेश्वराचार्य  (śrī sureśvarācārya)   from his famous  वार्तिक  (vārtika - quail)  composed by him as a gloss on the  श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य   ( śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
षष्ठगोचरवत्सर्वं कार्यकारणवज्जगत्। ध्वस्तात्मान्ध्यस्य विदुषः सम्यग्ज्ञानोदये भवते॥ अव्यावृत्ताननुगत्मतिहेतु सदैकलम्। विज्ञानधनमानन्दमैकात्मयं व्यवतिष्ठते॥ ग्राहकादिविभागोऽत्न नास्ति तद्धेत्वसम्भवात्। चिन्मात्नस्य स्वतः सिद्धेर्विज्ञानघनगीरतः॥ आत्माविद्यामनाश्रित्य कारकत्वं न लभ्यते। कारकं चानपाश्रित्य न क्रियेह प्रसिध्यति॥ अन्तरेण क्रियां तद्वत्फलं नैव प्रसिध्यति। कारकाद्यात्मना सेयमविद्यैव प्रकाशते॥ यत एवमतोऽविद्यासमुच्छत्ताविदं जगत्। व्याकृताव्याकृतं कृत्स्नमात्मतामेति बोधतः॥	ṣaṣṭhagocaravatsarvaṃ kāryakāraṇavajjagat। dhvastātmāndhyasya viduṣaḥ samyagjñānodaye bhavate॥ avyāvṛttānanugatmatihetu sadaikalam। vijñānadhanamānandamaikātmayaṃ vyavatiṣṭhate॥ grāhakādivibhāgo'tna nāsti taddhetvasambhavāt। cinmātnasya svataḥ siddhervijñānaghanagīrataḥ॥ ātmāvidyāmanāśritya kārakatvaṃ na labhyate। kārakaṃ cānapāśritya na kriyeha prasidhyati॥ antareṇa kriyāṃ tadvatphalaṃ naiva prasidhyati। kārakādyātmanā seyamavidyaiva prakāśate॥ yata evamato'vidyāsamucchattāvidaṃ jagat। vyākṛtāvyākṛtaṃ kṛtsnamātmatāmeti bodhataḥ॥	All (this) world (which is) made up of causes and effects, would become like the world which falls within the range of the sixth sense-organ, viz. manas. When there arises the right knowledge on the part of one whose blindness as regards the true nature of the individual consciousness is destroyed. There remains only the oneness, which is not differentiated and followed by anything else, beyond cause, ever alone, a mass of consciousness and bliss. Distinction (lit. division) (of reality) such as a knower etc. does not exist here owing to the impossiblity of there being any cause of that (ignorance). Since consciousness, one (without a second) is self-established, there is the word (of the śruti) vijñānaghana (about it). Here (i.e. in the worldly dealings) the charecter of an agent (on the part of the individual consciousness) is not noticed (lit. found) by one who has not resorted to ignorance about the Ātman. And there is no activity established without resorting to (the character of) agent. Similarly, no result is ever secured without some activity. Thus, in the form of the different kārakas this ignorance itself manifests (to one). Because this is so, there being complete eradication of ignorance, the entire world, manifest and/or unmanifest, becomes one with the Ātman through knowledge (of the real nature of it). -tranlation by Shoun hino & K.P. Jog
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य सुरेश्वरवार्तिक (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya sureśvaravārtika) (2.4.13)

Citation 2.1.13: From  श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)   (# 4.3.14)

  Here the author of the original post cites a partial extract from the  श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya)  as denoted below:

Citation 2.13  in the   original post of  Michael Chandra Cohen

" Not so, for that is possible before enlightenment like the behaviour in a dream before awakening. The scripture also speaks of the use of perception etc. in the case of the unenlightened man in the text, "Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something" (Br. II. iv. 14, IV. v. 15); and then it shows the absence of this in the case of an enlightened man, "But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?"   "

      Let us first look at what is originally declared in the relevant शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra – corporeal divive aphorism). Well, the revered श्री बादरायण महऋषि (śrī bādarāyaṇa mahaṛṣi) who is renouned सूत्रकार (sūtrakāra - aphoricist) of the same, declares thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न च कार्ये प्रतिपत्त्यभिसन्धिः।।	na ca kāryē pratipattyabhisandhiḥ।।	Moreover, the firm resolution about attainment is not concerned with the conditioned Brahman. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra) (4.3.14)

    

Let us next look at the relevant explanation given by  श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य भगवद्पाद  (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya bhagavadpāda)   in his famous  भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary )  on the above 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
परस्मादनन्यत्वेऽपि जीवस्य सर्वव्यवहारलोपप्रसङ्गः, प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणाप्रवृत्तेरिति चेत् — न, प्राक्प्रबोधात् स्वप्नव्यवहारवत् तदुपपत्तेः ; शास्त्रं च ‘यत्र हि द्वैतमिव भवति तदितर इतरं पश्यति’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । १४) इत्यादिना अप्रबुद्धविषये प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहारमुक्त्वा, पुनः प्रबुद्धविषये — ‘यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. २ । ४ । १४) इत्यादिना तदभावं दर्शयति । तदेवं परब्रह्मविदो गन्तव्यादिविज्ञानस्य वाधितत्वात् न कथञ्चन गतिरुपपादयितुं शक्या ।	parasmādananyatvē'pi jīvasya sarvavyavahāralōpaprasaṅgaḥ, pratyakṣādipramāṇāpravr̥ttēriti cēt — na, prākprabōdhāt svapnavyavahāravat tadupapattēḥ ; śāstraṁ ca ‘yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraṁ paśyati' (br̥. u. 2 । 4 । 14) ityādinā aprabuddhaviṣayē pratyakṣādivyavahāramuktvā, punaḥ prabuddhaviṣayē — ‘yatra tvasya sarvamātmaivābhūttatkēna kaṁ paśyēt' (br̥. u. 2 । 4 । 14) ityādinā tadabhāvaṁ darśayati । tadēvaṁ parabrahmavidō gantavyādivijñānasya vādhitatvāt na kathañcana gatirupapādayituṁ śakyā ।	Opponent: Even if the soul be non-different from the supreme Brahman, this will only result in the annulment of all human dealings (including the scriptural instruction), for then there can be no application of the means of knowledge like perception etc. Vedantin: Not so, for that is possible before enlightenment like the behaviour in a dream before awakening. The scripture also speaks of the use of perception etc. in the case of the unenlightened man in the text, “Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something” (Br. 2.4.14, 4.5.15); and then it shows the absence of this in the case of an enlightened man, “But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?” (ibid) etc. Thus since the notion of Brahman as a goal to be reached and such other ideas are eliminated for one who has realized the supreme Brahman, any movement cannot be asserted in his case in any way. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.3.14)

  It would be clear from the above analysis that no direct or even indirect reference indicating the disputed claim that the  ज्ञानिन्मुक्तात्मा व्यावहारिकं जगत् न पश्यति   (jñāninmuktātmā vyāvahārikaṁ jagat na paśyati – enlightened liberated soul does not see the phenomenal world)  is made in the above quoted   भाष्य  ( bhāṣya - commentary ) .

3. परमुक्तिविद्या (paramuktividyā – soteriology)

Etymologically the term मुक्ति (mukti – deliverance) is derived fron the root verb ‘मुच् (muc – to let go)’; in other words, “मुच् मोचने (muc mocane – to (get) released is liberation)”. And similarly, the synonymous term मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation) is also derived from a similar root verb ‘मोक्ष् (mokṣ - to loosen)’. Hence both terms imply the जीवात्मस्य परिनिवृति (jīvātmasya parinivṛti - final deliverance of emodied soul) from the संसारस्य विप्लुतचक्र  (saṃsārasya viplutacakra – vicious cycle of metemopsychosis), as explained in the योगवासिष्ठ (yogavāsiṣṭha) as follows,

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सकलाशास्वसंसक्त्या यत्स्वयं चेतसः क्षयः। स मोक्षनाम्ना कथिस्तत्त्वज्नैरात्मदशिर्भिः॥	sakalāśāsvasaṁsaktyā yatsvayaṁ cetasaḥ kṣayaḥ| sa mokṣanāmnā kathistattvajnairātmadaśirbhiḥ||	The dissolution of the mind of its own accord, on account of its absence of attachment to all desires, is described by the name liberation. By the knowers of Truth who have realized the Self. -Translation by Samvid
Sanskrit Reference: योगवासिष्ठ (yogavāsiṣṭha) (1613)

According to Hinduism,मोक्ष (mokṣa - salvation) is the most important amongst पुरुषार्थ (puruṣārtha – human objective) viz.काम (kāma - desire),अर्थ (artha - pursuit),धर्म (dharma - righteousness) & मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation). Yes, the ultimate goal of every soul is its मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation), i.e., to liberate itself from the bondage of the संसारस्य विप्लुतचक्र (saṃsārasya viplutacakra – vicious cycle of metemopsychosis). In other words, it is the stage of spritual विमुक्ति (vimukti - emancipation) and is defined in the सर्ववेदान्तसिद्धान्तसारसङ्ग्रह (sarvavedāntasiddhāntasārasaṅgraha – collection of entire final wisdom and final accomplishment essence) – an excellent treatise summarizing the key tenets of केवलाद्वैत दर्शन (kevalādvaita darśana – absolue nondualostic philosophy) the authorship of which is widely ascribed to श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानं सन्तः प्रहुः प्रयोजनम्। येन निःशेषसंसारबन्धात्सद्यः प्रमुच्यते॥	brahmātmaikatvavijñānaṃ santaḥ prahuḥ prayojanam। yena niḥśeṣasaṃsārabandhātsadyaḥ pramucyate॥	Knowledge is said to be the means of attaining the unity of Brahman and the self. When this is done one is completely freed from the bondage of the cycle of mundane existence. Translation by John M Denton
Sanskrit Reference: सर्ववेदान्तसिद्धान्तसारसङ्ग्रह (sarvavedāntasiddhāntasārasaṅgraha) (10)

Here is one more formal and comprehensive definition from the sacred निरालंबोपनिषद् (nirālaṃbopaniṣad).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
मोक्ष इति च नित्यनित्य वस्तुविचारादनित्य संसार सुखदुः खविषयसमस्तक्षेत्र ममताबन्धक्ष्यो मोक्षः।	mokṣa iti ca nityanitya vastuvicārādanitya saṁsāra sukhaduḥ khaviṣayasamastakṣetra mamatābandhakṣyo mokṣaḥ|	Moksha is the (state of) annhilation, through the discrimination of the eternal from the non-eternal, of all thoughts of bondage, like those of 'mine' in the objects of pleasure and pain, land, etc., in this transitory mondane existence. . -Translation by a board of scholars
Sanskrit Reference: निरालंबोपनिषद् (nirālaṃbopaniṣad) (29)

In Hinduism, मुक्ति/ मोक्ष (mukti / mokṣa – deliverance / liberation), which as discussed above, leads to परमानन्द (paramānanda – highest bliss) which is nothing less than the परब्रह्म (parabrahma – absolute divinity). This fact is very cryptically, but at the same time very strongly declared by श्री बाद्रायण महऋषि (śrī bādrāyaṇa mahaṛṣi) in his श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तत् तु समन्वयात्।	tat tu samanvayāt|	Because that It is the main purpot. - Translation based on Swami Vireshvaranda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra) (1.1.4)

In fact, may be that is why, श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṅkarācāryabhagavatpāda), goes one level higher in glorifying मुक्ति/ मोक्ष (mukti / mokṣa – deliverance / liberation) by identifying it with ब्रह्मत्व (brahmatva - divinity) itself. For example, in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commantary) on the ब्रह्मसूत्र (brahmasūtra), technically called as the शारीरकभाष्य (śārīrakabhāṣya), he very categorically declares that "ब्रह्मभावश्च मोक्षः (brahmabhāvaśca mōkṣaḥ - Liberation is the state of identity with Brahman)". 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तथा एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा। कर्माध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासः साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च इति स पर्यागाच्छुक्रमकायमव्रणमस्नाविरं शुद्धमपापविद्धम् इति च एतौ मन्त्रावनाधेयातिशयतां नित्यशुद्धतां च ब्रह्मणो दर्शयतः। ब्रह्मभावश्च मोक्षः। तस्मान्न संस्कार्योऽपि मोक्षः। अतोऽन्यन्मोक्षं प्रति क्रियानुप्रवेशद्वारं न शक्यं केनचिद्दर्शयितुम्। तस्माज्ज्ञानमेकं मुक्त्वा क्रियाया गन्धमात्रस्याप्यनुप्रवेश इह नोपपद्यते।	tathā ēkō dēvaḥ sarvabhūtēṣu gūḍhaḥ sarvavyāpī sarvabhūtāntarātmā। karmādhyakṣaḥ sarvabhūtādhivāsaḥ sākṣī cētā kēvalō nirguṇaśca iti sa paryāgācchukramakāyamavraṇamasnāviraṁ śuddhamapāpaviddham iti ca ētau mantrāvanādhēyātiśayatāṁ nityaśuddhatāṁ ca brahmaṇō darśayataḥ। brahmabhāvaśca mōkṣaḥ। tasmānna saṁskāryō'pi mōkṣaḥ। atō'nyanmōkṣaṁ prati kriyānupravēśadvāraṁ na śakyaṁ kēnaciddarśayitum। tasmājjñānamēkaṁ muktvā kriyāyā gandhamātrasyāpyanupravēśa iha nōpapadyatē।	So also there are the texts: "The one deity remains hidden in all beings. He is all pervasive, the indwelling Self of all, the regulator of all actions, the support of all beings, the witness, consciousness, non-dual, and without qualities" (Sv. VI. 11) and "He is omnipresent, effulgent, without body, wound, and sinews, pure and untouched (Is. 8). These two mantras show that Brahman is beyond the imputation of all kinds of excellence (or inferiority), and It is ever pure. Liberation is the state of identity with Brahman, and hence it is not to be achieved through purification. Besides, apart from these, nobody can show any other mode whereby liberation can he associated with action. Accordingly, apart from knowledge alone, there cannot be the slightest touch of action here. - Translation based on Swami Vireshvaranda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.1.4)

In fact, as part of the same, भाष्य (bhāṣya - commantary) the revered परमाचार्य (paramācārya – chief preceptor) while discussing about “इतञ्च कूटस्थनित्यं ब्रह्म (itañca kūṭasthanityaṃ brahma – this is the eternally immutable divinity)” describes the लक्षणानि मोक्षस्य (lakṣaṇāni mokṣasya - charecteristics of liberation) which interestingly corresponds to that of परब्रह्म (parabrahma – absolute divinity): 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तत्र किञ्चित् परिणामिनित्यं स्याद् यस्मिन् विक्रियमाणेऽपि'तदेवेदम्' इति बुद्धिः न विहन्यते। यथा पृथ्व्यादि जगन्नित्यत्ववादिनां यथा वा साङ्ख्यानं गुणाः। इदं तु परमार्थिकं कूटस्थनित्यं व्योमवत्सर्वयापि सर्वविक्रियारहितं नित्यतृप्तं निरवयवं स्वयञ्ज्योतिःस्वभावं यत्र धर्माधर्मौ सहकार्येण कालत्रयं च नोपावर्तेते। ततेदत् अशरीरत्वं मोक्षाख्यं "अन्यत्र धर्मादन्यत्राधर्माद् अन्यात्रास्मात् कृताकृतात्। अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च" (क उ १।२।१४) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः अतः तद् ब्रह्म यस्येयं जिज्ञासा प्रस्तुता॥	tatra kiñcit pariṇāminityaṃ syād yasmin vikriyamāṇe'pi'tadevedam' iti buddhiḥ na vihanyate। yathā pṛthvyādi jagannityatvavādināṃ yathā vā sāṅkhyānaṃ guṇāḥ। idaṁ tu paramārthikaṁ kūṭasthanityaṁ vyomavatsarvayāpi sarvavikriyārahitaṁ nityatṛptaṃ niravayavaṃ svayañjyotiḥsvabhāvaṃ yatra dharmādharmau sahakāryeṇa kālatrayaṁ ca nopāvartete। tatedat aśarīratvaṃ mokṣākhyaṃ “anyatra dharmādanyatrādharmād anyātrāsmāt kṛtākṛtāt। anyatra bhūtācca bhavyācca" (ka u 1.2.14) ityādiśrutibhyaḥ ataḥ tad brahma yasyeyaṃ jijñāsā prastutā॥	Among things permenant some are changefully permenant, with regard to which the idea “That very thing is this one”, does not get sublated even though the thing goes on changing, as for instance the earth according to those who say the world is permanent, or the three constuents of matter (sattva, rajas and tamas) according to the Samkhyas. But this one (liberation) is unchangingly permenant in the absolute sense; it is all-pervasive like space, devoid of all modifications, ever content, partless and self-effulgent by nature. This is that unembodiedness called liberation, where the ideal of three periods of time does not exist and virtuous and viscious deeds cease allong with their effeects (happiness and sorrow), as stated in the Vedic text, “Speak of that thing which you see as different from virtue and vice, different from cause and effect, and different from the past and the future” (Ka.U. 1.2.14). (Since the liberation is different from the , it beinng unrelated to virtue and vice), therefore (liberation) is the same as Brahman about which the deliberation is started. - Translation based on Swami Vireshvaranda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.1.4)

Please note that at the end of the above paragraph, the highlighted phrase “अतः तद् ब्रह्म (ataḥ tad brahma  - therefore (liberation) is the same as Brahman)“ emphasizes the same point. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
ब्रह्मैव हि मुक्त्यवस्था ।	brahmaiva hi muktyavasthā |	Liberation simply is Brahman. -Translation by Lance E Nelson
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.1.4)

In Tamil philosophical literatures, मुक्ति/ मोक्ष (mukti /mokṣa – deliverance / liberation) is technically called வீடுபேறு (vīṭupēṟu – home coming accomplishment). This term is loaded with esoteric meanings. According to Tamil Grammatical rules, this dual worded term is derived as follows: 

• விடுவது 'வீடு' (viṭuvatu 'vīṭu' – to let-go  is ‘release’)
• பெறுவது ‘பேறு’ (peṟuvatu ‘pēṟu’– to obtain/attain is ‘attainment’)

In other words, the compound term வீடுபேறு (vīṭupēṟu – home coming accomplishment)  contains two main தொழிர் பெயர் சொற்கள் (toḻir peyar coṟkaḷ – verbal nouns) each of which inturn contains two parts as explained below 

#	பெயர்சொல் (peyarsol - noun)	பகுதி (paguti - main)	விகுதி (viguti - suffix)
1	விடுதல் (viṭutal – letting go)	விடு (viṭu - leave)	தல் (tal)
2	பெறுதல் (peṟutal - recieving)	பெறுதல் (peṟu – receive)	தல் (tal)

Now, according to the above rule, the term வீடு (vīṭu – home) is considered as a திரிந்த (tirinda – modified) version of the முதல் நிலை பகுதி (mudal nilai paguti – primary part) viz., விடு (viṭu - leave).  The former is called முதல் நிலைத்திரிந்த தொழிற்பெயர் (mutal nilaittirinta toḻiṟpeyar –verbal noun with first part extention), while the latter is called முதல் நிலைதிரியாத தொழிற்பெயர் (mutal nilaitiriyāta toḻiṟpeyar - verbal noun without first part extention). Here, the குறில் எழுத்து (kuṟil eḻuuttu – short letter)  viz. “வி (vi)”,gets modified as the நெடில் எழுத்து (neṭil eḻuttu – elongified letter) viz. “வீ (vī)”. Similarly, the second noun viz. பேறு (pēṟu - attainment) can also be derived accordingly. In other words, the term வீடு (vīṭu – home) is derived from the action verb விடு (viṭu - leave) and thus symbolizies விடுபடுதல் (viṭupaṭutal – to get released / liberated) and its derived noun forms include related terms like விடுதலை (viṭutalai – freedom / independence), விடை (viṭai- solution) etc.

Thus, we see how the Tamil term வீடு (vīṭu – home), in this context, exactly corresponds to the concept of मुक्ति/मोक्ष (mukti / mokṣa – deliverance /liberation). Philosophically, as in line with above definitions from different faith systems, வீடு (vīṭu – home) represents the concept of பாச நீக்கம் (pāca nīkkam – fetter removal); in other words, பதி ஞானத்தால் / சத்தினிபாதத்தால்  பசு தன் பாசத்திலிருந்து விடுதலை அடைவது (pati ñāṉattāl / cattiṉipātattāl  pacu taṉ pācattiliruntu viṭutalai aṭaivatu -  soul getting liberated from its fetters by spiritual enlightenment/ divine grace), as testified in the following verses by திருவள்ளுவர் (tiruvaḷḷuvar)  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
பற்றுக பற்றற்றான் பற்றினை அப்பற்றைப் பற்றுக பற்று விடற்கு.	paṟṟuka paṟṟaṟṟāṉ paṟṟiṉai appaṟṟaip paṟṟuka paṟṟu viṭaṟku.	Cling thou to that which He, to Whom nought clings, hath bid thee cling, Cling to that bond, to get thee free from every clinging thing. -translation by G.U. Pope
Tamil Reference: திருக்குறள் (tirukkuṟaḷ) (350)

Interestingly, the related significance of the term does not end here, for the term ţΠ(vIdu)  is highly polymorphic; it not only means வீடு (vīṭu – deliverance / release), but it also means வீடு (vīṭu – home) i.e. the natural or default habitat of anybody. In other words, my வீடு (vīṭu – release), is my naturally ultimate comfort zone – as the popular idiom goes “home sweet home”. Thus, in a philosophical context, it means the பசு/पशु (pasu / paśu – bound soul) which had got lost into the dark wilderness of माय (māyā - illusion), where it does not rightfully belong, arrives back safely to its natural home sweet home. The key concept to note here is that வீடு (vīṭu – deliverance / release) is its natural வீடு (vīṭu – home).

Thus, मुक्ति/ मोक्ष (mukti /mokṣa – deliverance / liberation) is the most सहज अवस्था भावस्य (sahaja avasthā bhāvasya – natural state of being) for every soul and is not some thing that needs to be acquired newly based on any kind of actions or qualifications. This fact is very categorically testified by श्री आदिशंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādiśaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda) in the following verse from his सर्ववेदान्तसिद्धान्तसारसङ्ग्रह (sarvavedāntasiddhāntasārasaṅgraha)  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
आप्त्राप्ययोस्तु भेदश्चेदाप्त्रा चाप्यमवाप्यते। आप्तृस्वरूपमेवैतत्ब्रह्म नाप्यं कदाचन॥	āptrāpyayostu bhedaścedāptrā cāpyamavāpyate। āptṛsvarūpamevaitatbrahma nāpyaṃ kadācana॥	If there were difference between the one who attains and that which is attained, then then that is which is to be attained is attained by the attainer. This Brahman is the nature of attainer and never the effect that is to be attained. -Translation source internet
Sanskrit Reference: सर्ववेदान्तसिद्धान्तसारसङ्ग्रह (sarvavedāntasiddhāntasārasaṅgraha) (157)

“Each soul”, as Swami Vivekananda says, “is potentially divine” and is therefore, always eternally liberated and hence is not dependent on anything else including – action, purity or any other pre-requisites. In othe words, मुक्ति (mukti – liberation) is “being” rather than “becoming”. This fact is very categorically explained by श्री आदिशंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādiśaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda) as part of his शारीरकभाष्य (śārīrakabhāṣya)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न च आप्यत्वेनापि कार्यापेक्षा स्वात्मरूपत्वे सति अनाप्यत्वात् स्वरूपव्यतिरिकक्तत्वेऽपि ब्रह्मणो नाप्यत्वं सर्वगतत्वेन नित्याप्तरूपत्वात् सर्वेण ब्रह्मणः आकाशस्येव। नापि संस्कार्यो मोक्षः येन व्यापारमापेक्षत संस्कारो हि नाम संस्कार्यस्य गुनाधनीन वा स्याद् दोषपनयनेन वा न तावद्गुणाधानेन सम्भवति अनादेयातिशयब्रह्मस्वरूपत्वाद् मोक्षस्य नापि दोषापन्यनेन नित्यशुद्धब्रह्मस्वरूपात्वाद् मोक्षस्य।	na ca āpyatvenāpi kāryāpekṣā svātmarūpatve sati anāpyatvāt svarūpavyatirikaktatve'pi brahmaṇo nāpyatvaṃ sarvagatatvena nityāptarūpatvāt sarveṇa brahmaṇaḥ ākāśasyeva। nāpi saṃskāryo mokṣaḥ yena vyāpāramāpekṣata saṃskāro hi nāma saṃskāryasya gunādhanīna vā syād doṣapanayanena vā na tāvadguṇādhānena sambhavati anādeyātiśayabrahmasvarūpatvād mokṣasya nāpi doṣāpanyanena nityaśuddhabrahmasvarūpātvād mokṣasya।	And no dependence on work can be proved by assuming liberation to be a thing to be acquired; for it being essentially one with one’s very Self, there can be no acquisition. Even if Brahman be different from oneself, there can be no acquiistion for Brahman, being all-pervasive like space. It remains ever attained by everybody. Liberation cannot also be had through purification, so as to be dependent on action. Purification is achieved either through addition of some quality or removal of some defect. As to that purification is not possible here through the addition of any quality, since liberation is of the very nature of Brahman on which no excellence (or deterioration) can be effected. Nor is that possible through the removal of any defect, for liberation is of the very nature of Brahman that is ever pure. - Translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.1.4)

In fact, श्री आदि शङ्कराचार् भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavatpāda) in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the famous बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad), reiterates that just as उष्ण (uṣṇa – heat) is the स्वभावः अग्नेः (svabhāvaḥ agneḥ - inherent nature of fire), so is मुक्ति/ मोक्ष (mukti / mokṣa – deliverance / liberation) to the आत्म (ātma - soul).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न च स्वभाविकात् स्वभावादन्यन्नित्यं कल्पयितुं शक्यम्। स्वभाविकश्चैदगन्युष्णवदात्मनः स्वभावः स न शक्यते पुर्पव्य पारानुभावीति वक्तुम्। न अगनेरौष्ण्यं प्रकाशौ वागित्व्या पारानन्तरानुभावी। स्वभाविकश्चेति विप्रतिषिद्धम्।	na ca svabhāvikāt svabhāvādanyannityaṃ kalpayituṃ śakyam। svabhāvikaścaidaganyuṣṇavadātmanaḥ svabhāvaḥ sa na śakyate purpavya pārānubhāvīti vaktum। na aganerauṣṇyaṃ prakāśau vāgitvyā pārānantarānubhāvī। svabhāvikaśceti vipratiṣiddham।	Nothing but the innerent nature of a thing can be regarded as eternal. If liberation is the nature of the self, like the heat of fire, it cannot be said to be a consequence of human activity. The heat or light of fire is not the consequence of the activity of fire; it is a contradiction in terms to say that they are, and yet that they are the natural properties of fire. -Translation by Swami Madhvananda (R.K.M. Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.4.6)

In spiritual terms “சித்தி / सिद्धि (siddhi – accomplishment)” is deeply connected to the soteriological concept of முக்தி /मुक्ति (mukti - liberation). Here, मुक्ति/ मोक्ष (mukti / mokṣa – deliverance / liberation) corresponds to the act of joyful home coming of the soul back to its native habitat. The key concept to understand here is that no other place in the world can eventually be so comfortable, as his own home. That is why the adjective ‘sweet’ is used when saying ‘home sweet home’. Home, philosophically symbolizes the Divine Abode – Thus, வீடு (vīṭu - home) i.e., “home coming” means, release of the கட்டுண்ட பத்தாத்மன் (kaṭṭuṇḍa baddātmaṉ – tied corporeal soul) technically called as பசு/पशु (pasu / paśu – bound soul) from the clutches of पाशबन्ध (pāśabandha – binding fetters) and its return to பதி/पति (pathi / pati - lord), as testified in the following couplet by திருவள்ளுவர் (tiruvaḷḷuvar) in his திருக்குறள் (tirukkuṟaḷ)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
இருள்நீங்கி இன்பம் பயக்கும் மருள்நீங்கி மாசறு காட்சி யவர்க்கு	iruḷnīṅki iṉpam payakkum maruḷnīṅki mācaṟu kāṭci yavarkku	Darkness departs, and rapture springs to men who see, The mystic vision pure, from all delusion free. -translation by G.U. Pope
Tamil Reference: திருக்குறள் (tirukkuṟaḷ) (352)

Please remember that naturally this would be the soul’s highest attainment viz. இன்ப மகாப்பேறு / परमानन्द सिद्धि (iṉpa makāppēṟu / paramānanda siddhi – blissful accomplishment).  And precisely, such सिद्धि siddhi – accomplishment) is what exactly is referred by the word பேறு (pēṟu – accomplishment) in the term வீடுபேறு (vīṭupēṟu – home coming accomplishment). In other words, the term मुक्ति (mukti –liberation) represents the சாதனம் (cātaṉam – technique / process), while சித்தி / सिद्धि (siddhi – accomplishment) represents its அனுபவநிலை  (anubava nilai - experiential state). The noble saint திரு அருட்பிரகாச இராமலிங்க வள்ளலார் (tiru aruṭpirakāsa iramaliṅga vaḻḻalār) very clearly highlights this subtle difference in the following verses from his அருட்பெருஞ்சோதி அகவல் (aruṭperuñcōti akaval)  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
புடையுறு சித்தியின் பொருட்டே முத்தியை அடைவதென் றருளிய வருட்பெருஞ் ஜோதி முத்தியென் பதுநிலை முனுறு சாதனம் அத்தக வென்றவென் னருட்பெருஞ் ஜோதி சித்தியென் பதுநிலை சேர்ந்த வநுபவம் அத்திற லென்றவென் னருட்பெருஞ் ஜோதி	puṭaiyuṟu cittiyiṉ poruṭṭē muttiyai aṭaivateṉ ṟaruḷiya varuṭperuñ jōti muttiyeṉ patunilai muṉuṟu cātaṉam attaka veṉṟaveṉ ṉaruṭperuñ jōti cittiyeṉ patunilai cērnta vanupavam attiṟa leṉṟaveṉ ṉaruṭperuñ jōti	The Boundless Benevolent Jothi has enlightend that the aim of gaining beatification is to keep at hand the bulging siddhis. The Boundless Benevolent Jothi has illuminated that the charecteristic feature of salvation is that it is (only) a means (to an end). The Boundless Benevolent Jothi has declared that the experience gained after entering the final stage is called siddhi -translation by Daiyavu Swami Saravanananda
Tamil Reference: திருவருட்பா: அருட்பெருஞ்சோதி அகவல் (tiruvaruṭpā: aruṭperuñjoti agaval) (249-251)

    In Occidental religions, the equivalent concept is salvation. Etymologically, the term is derived from the Latin root Salus which means ‘to heal’ and it also means wholeness or perfection.  In other words, it is the process of self-healing to perfection. In fact, the Abington dictionary of living religions defines salvation as follows:

”Salvation may be understood as the state of being safe from destructive forces, natural or supernatural, and as the act of deliverance from destruction, pain, loss, death, sin, curse, punishment.. or suffering. The Latin salus and the French salut-‘whole’ ‘healthy’­ imply the notion of salvation as healing, a metaphor found in many religious traditions. The human predicament of sin, death, ignorance, and impurity is an ‘illness’ from which salvation brings ‘healing.’ This meaning also is evident in the German Heil-healing or salvation-and heilig-the holy or sacred, the source of salvation. Salvation implies such concepts as whole, healthy, strong, vigorous, enjoying well-being, or bliss”.

    Alternatively, from a theological perspective, the term salvation is etymologically mapped to the Latin term ‘salvre’ which means ‘I save’. In other words, it is the process by which God saves man from the viscious cycle of sinful life. For example, the Christian Catholic dictionary defines salvation as follows:

 “In biblical language the deliverance from straitened circumstances or oppression by some evil to a state of freedom and security. As sin is the greatest evil, salvation is mainly liberation from sin and its consequences. This can be deliverance by way of preservation, or by offering the means for being delivered, or by removing the oppressive evil or diffculty, or by rewarding the effort spent in co-operating with grace in order to be delivered. All four aspects of salvation are found in the Scriptures and are taught by the Church”  

    In Christianity, obviously Jesus the Christ, glorified as the only Begotten Son, is the Ultimate Savior. The Holy Bible very categorically declares thus:  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
אָנֹכִ֥י אָנֹכִ֖י יְהוָ֑ה וְאֵ֥ין מִבַּלְעָדַ֖י מֹושִֽׁיעַ׃׃	Anki anki ieue u·ain m·blod·I mushio	‘I, even I, am the Lord, and besides me there is no Saviour’.
Hebrew Reference 1: Holy Bible(Old Testment): Isaiah (43:11)

Similarly, every religion believes its own beloved God as the ultimate redeemer. In Judaism, for example, the Hebrew term ge'ulah (redemption) defines the doctrine of God’s redemption of the people of Israelites. ge'ulah (redemption) leads people from bondage or enslavism to cheirus (freedom).

Again, in Islamic context, the concept of salvation corresponds to the Arabic term خلاص (khalas - deliverance) which mean liberation from the clutches of hell after one’s death. It means the escape from the punishment of after the “Day of Judgement”. The Holy Quran states very emphatically:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
الَّذِينَ يَذْكُرُونَ اللّهَ قِيَاماً وَقُعُوداً وَعَلَىَ جُنُوبِهِمْ وَيَتَفَكَّرُونَ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ رَبَّنَا مَا خَلَقْتَ هَذا بَاطِلاً سُبْحَانَكَ فَقِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ	Allatheena yathkuroona Allaha qiyaman waquAAoodan waAAala junoobihim wayatafakkaroona fee khalqi alssamawati waalardi rabbana ma khalaqta hatha batilan subhanaka faqina AAathaba alnnari	Those who remember God (always, and in prayers) standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and think deeply about the creation of the heavens and the earth, (saying), "Our Lord! You have not created (all) this without purpose, glory to You! (Exalted are You above all that they associate with You as partners). Give us salvation from the torment of the Fire
Arabic Reference 1: Holy Quran (3:191)

3.1 मोक्षस्य प्रकारः (mokṣasya prakāraḥ – types of liberation)

As we already learnt, as part of our earlier discussion on परमुक्ति विद्या (paramukti vidyā – soteriology), etymologically the term मुक्ति (mukti - liberation) is derived from the Sanskrit root मुच् (muc – to let loose/release) – “मुच् मोचने (muc mocane – to (get) released is liberation)” and similarly, मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation) is also derived from a similar root मोक्ष् (mokṣ - to loosen). Thus, मुक्ति/ मोक्ष (mukti  / mokṣa – liberation) is the process by which the जीवात्म (jīvātma -  corporeal soul) gets finally released  from the viscious संसार चक्र बन्ध (saṁsāra cakra  bandha - clutches of metemopsychotic cycle) and the soul eventually attains समाधि (samādhi – atonement). Again, as already discussed, this is the essence of வீடுபேறு (vīṭupēṟu – liberational accomplishment).

    With this basic understanding let us take a quick look at the various मोक्षस्य प्रकारः (mokṣasya prakāraḥ - types of liberation) recognized across various schools of Indian philosophy. Broadly speaking मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation) can be classified based on two broad parameters viz. in terms of काल विधेयत्व  (kāla vidheyatva - time dependency) on the one hand and in terms of देह विधेयत्व (deha vidheyatva – body dependency).  In the former case मुक्ति (mukti - liberation) can further classified either as क्रम मुक्ति (krama mukti – gradual liberation) or as सद्यो मुक्ति (sadyo mukti – immediate liberation) and in the latter case they can be classified either as जीवन् मुक्ति (jīvan mukti – embodied salvation), विदेह मुक्ति (videha mukti - disembodied salvation) & अमृत मुक्ति (amṛta mukti – immortal liberation).The following will visually summarize these types

    However, please remember these are only relative and not absolute differences, for at the end of the day, a मुक्त (mukta - liberated) is a मुक्त (mukta - liberated) irrespective of the mode of मुक्ति (mukti - liberation).This point is very categorically testified by Saint Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi, (as recorded by David Godman): 

“Mukti is synonymous with the Self. Jivan Mukti (liberated while still in the body) and Videha Mukti are all for the ignorant. The jnani is not conscious of Mukti or Bandha (bondage). Bondage, liberation and orders of Mukti are all said for an ajnani in order that ignorance might be shaken off. There is only Mukti and nothing else”. 

    Again, the following verses from योगवासिष्ठ (yogavāsiṣṭha) further testifies this fact

Original	Transliteration	Translation
द्विचिधा मुक्तता लोके संभवत्यन्धाकृते। सदेहैका विदेहायन्या विभागोयं तयोः श्रुणु॥ न मनागपि भेदोयस्ति सदेहा देहमृक्त्योः। सस्पन्दोप्यथ वायस्पन्दो वायुरेव यथा अनिलः॥	dvicidhā muktatā loke saṁbhavatyandhākṛte| sadehaikā videhāayanyā vibhāgoayaṁ tayoḥ śruṇu|| na manāgapi bhedoayasti sadehā dehamṛktyoḥ| saspandoapyatha vāyaspando vāyureva yathā anilaḥ||	Sinless One! The state of liberation of two kinds occurs in the world. One is with the body and the other, is without the body. This is their division. Hear (this). There is not even a little difference between the one liberated with the body and the one liberated without the body, as wind is only air whether it is with motion or without motion. -Translation by Samvid
Sanskrit Reference: योगवासिष्ठ (yogavāsiṣṭha) (1627, 1630)

Thus, as long as one gets मोक्ष (mokṣa – liberation) from the worlfly बन्ध (bandha – bondage), there are no fundamental differences between these modes of मुक्ति (mukti – deliverance). We shall now briefly touch upon both these modes.

सदेह / जीवन् मुक्ति (sadeha / jīvan mukti - ante mortem liberation)

With this clarity in mind, let us start understanding these two modes of मुक्ति (mukti – liberation), starting with विदेह मुक्ति (videha mukthi – post mortem / disembodied salvation). As the name indicates, सदेह / जीवन् मुक्ति (sadeha / jīvan  mukti – ante mortem/ embodied  liberation) is the process of मुक्ति (mukti - salvation) even while जीविक (jīvika - living) in the भूत देह (bhūta deha - physical body). The सांख्य (sāṁkhya), योग (yoga), वेदान्त (vedānta) & शैव सिद्धान्त (śaiva siddhānta) schools are the principle proponents of this concept in Hindusim. Sikkhism also supports believes in it. In Buddhism, जीवन्मुक्त (jīvanmukta – living liberate) is referred as  अर्हत् (arhat - venerable) while in Jainism he is refered using the Prakrit term अरिहन्त् (arihant - venerable).   

In Hindusim, several holy scriptures including प्रस्थानत्रयी शास्त्र (prasthānatrayī śāstra – primary three scriptures) viz. मुख्य उपनिषद् (mukhya upaniṣad – principle upanishads), ब्रह्मसूत्र (brahmasūtra), श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता (śrīmadbhagavadgītā), as well as other scriptures including सामान्य वेदान्त उपनिषद् (sāmānya vedānta upaniṣad), योग उपनिषद् (yoga upaniṣad), जीवन् मुक्ति विवेक (jīvan mukti viveka), योग वासिष्ट (yoga vāsiṣṭa), रिभु गीता (ribhu gītā), शिव गीता (śiva gītā), अवधूत गीता (avadhūta gītā) etc., eloborately discuss the nature and process of such a stage. Again, திருமந்திரம் (tirumantiram), orthodox சைவ சித்தாந்த சாத்திர இலக்கியங்கள் (siddānta sāttira ilakkiyaṅgaḻ) including the core மெய்கண்ட சாத்திரங்கள் (meikaṇḍa sāttiraṅgaḻ), as well as, தமிழ் சித்தர் பாடல்கள் (tamizh siddar pāḍalgaḻ – Tamil Siddhar songs) etc., also deal at length with the subject.

According to केवल अद्वैत दर्शन (kevala advaita darśana – absolute nonduality school),  for instance, the soul on attaining आत्म ज्ञान  (ātma jñāna – self realization) is liberated from the clutches माया (māyā - illusion) and becomes one with the निर्गुण ब्रह्मन् (nirguṇa brahman - absolute reality); such a soul is called as a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – liberated in life).  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
असंसक्त्मतेर्यस्य त्यागदानेषु कर्मणाम्। नैषणा ततिस्थतिं विद्धि त्वं जीवन्मुक्ततामिह्॥	asaṁsaktmateryasya tyāgadāneṣu karmaṇām| naiṣaṇā tatisthatiṁ viddhi tvaṁ jīvanmuktatāmih||	Know tha state as one of liberation while living here. (in which) there is no desire in the taking or the leaving of activities for one who has an unattached mind. -Translation by Samvid
Sanskrit Reference: योगवासिष्ठ (yogavāsiṣṭha) (1628)

Again, आचार्य श्रि सदानन्द (ācārya śri sadānanda) in his famous treatise वेदान्तसार (vedāntasāra – essence of final wisdom) provides a fairly comprehensive description of a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – liberated in life)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
जीवन्मुक्तोनाम स्वरूपाकङ्डब्रह्मज्ञानेन तदाज्ञानबाधनद्वार स्वस्वरूपाखण्ड ब्रह्मणि साक्षात्कृते ऽज्ञानतकार्यसञ्चितकर्मसंशयविपर्ययादिनामपि बधितत्त्वादखिलभन्दरहितो ब्रह्मनिष्ठः।	jīvanmuktonāma svarūpākaṅḍabrahmajñānena tadājñānabādhanadvāra svasvarūpākhaṇḍa brahmaṇi sākṣātkṛte 'jñānatakāryasañcitakarmasaṃśayaviparyayādināmapi badhitattvādakhilabhandarahito brahmaniṣṭhaḥ।	A man liberated-in-life (jivanmukta) is one who by the knowledge of the absolute Brahman, his own Self has dispelled the ignorance regarding It, and has realized It, and who owing to the destruction of ignorance and its effects such as accumulated past actions, doubts, errors etc., is free from all bondage and is established in Brahman. -Translation by Swami Nikhilananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: वेदान्तसार (vedāntasāra) (217)

In other words,  पूरण वासङ्ग / कैवल्य (pūraṇa vāsaṅga / kaivalya – complete detachment / isolation) from personal desires is the key prerequisite charecteristics of a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate). He is a निष्काम कर्म योगि (niṣkāma karma yogi – desirelessly working ascetic) who does not have any personal hidden agendas in any of his thoughts, words or deeds. He is no longer bound to the संसार चक्र (saṁsāra cakra – metemopsychosis) dictated by the कर्म विधि (karma vidhi – karmic laws). Again, in मुक्तिकोपनिषद् (muktikopaniṣad), Lord श्री रामचन्द्रमूर्ति (śrī rāmacandramūrti) explains to श्री भक्त हनुमान्  (śrī bhakta hanumān)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
पुरुषस्य कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वसिखदुः खादिलक्षणश्चित्तधर्मः क्लेशरूपत्वाद्वन्धो भवति। तिन्निरोधनं जीवन्मुक्तः॥	puruṣasya kartṛtvabhoktṛtvasikhaduḥ khādilakṣaṇaścittadharmaḥ kleśarūpatvādvandho bhavati| tinnirodhanaṁ jīvanmuktaḥ||	For a person there is bondage from doer-ship, enjoyer-ship, pleasure, pain etc., -- their prevention is liberation in the body. -Translation by A.G Krishna Warrier
Sanskrit Reference: मुक्तिकोपनिषद् (muktikopaniṣad) (2.1.1)

The ब्रह्मज्ञान (brahmajñāna – spiritual enlightenment) attained by a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate) frees him from all his ÓõÁÄí¸û (mumalangaL – triple fetters) including his karmic bondings just as darkness of night is removed by the dawn of the sun rise. भगवान् श्री कृष्ण (bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇa) in the श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता (śrīmadbhagavadgītā) very categorically declares “ज्ञानाग्नि सर्वकर्माणी भस्मात् कुरुते। (jñānāgniḥ sarvakarmaṇī bhasmāt kurute| - wisdom burns all karmas to ashes)”.

In terms of पतञ्जलयोगसूत्र (patañjalayogasūtra), this state of जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate) corresponds to what is technically called as धर्ममेघ समाधि (dharmamegha samādhi – cloud (stream) of righteousness atonement), which, as we already observed, is the highest kind of निर्बीज / निर्विकल्प समाधि (nirbīja / nirvikalpa samādhi – seedless / nonimaginative atonement) based on निरालम्बन / निराधार योग (nirālambana / nirādhāra  yoga – union without support / base). In terms of गुणस्य आत्म कार्य अवस्था (guṇasya ātma kārya avasthā –qualitative effective soul state), this state corresponds to तुर्य निर्गुण तुर्य /तुर्याथीत अवस्था (turya nirguṇa turya / turyāthīta  avasthā – transcendent state beyond fourth quaity / trance).

This is a very important concept for us to understand as this is wherein the two main alternate models of soterlology in Indian philosophy viz.  समाधि वाद (samādhi vāda – doctrine of atonement) discussed primarily in the योग शास्त्र (yoga śāstra – yoga literature) seemlessly integrates with the मुक्ति वाद (mukti vāda – doctrine of liberation) primarily discussed in the वेदान्त शास्त्र (vedānta śāstra – vedanta literature).  

The revered श्री भारतीर्थ विद्यारण्य स्वामी (śrī bhāratīrtha vidyāraṇya svāmī) while discussing about तत्त्वविवेक (tattvaviveka) in his वेदान्त पञ्चदशि (vedānta pañcadaśi) furher echoes the concept thus, 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
अनादाविह संसारे सञ्चिताः कर्मकोटय्ः। अनेन विलयं यान्ति शुद्धो धर्मो विवर्धते॥ धर्ममेघमिमं प्राहुह् समाधिं योगवित्तमाः। वर्षत्येषो यतो धर्मोऽमृतधाराः सहस्रशः॥ अमुना वासनाजाले निश्शेषं प्रविलापिते। समूलोन्मूलिते पूण्यपापख्ये कर्मसञ्चये॥	anādāviha saṁsāre sañcitāḥ karmakoṭayḥ। anena vilayaṁ yānti śuddho dharmo vivardhate॥ dharmameghamimaṃ prāhuh samādhiṃ yogavittamāḥ। varṣatyeṣo yato dharmo'mṛtadhārāḥ sahasraśaḥ॥ amunā vāsanājāle niśśeṣaṁ pravilāpite। samūlonmūlite pūṇyapāpakhye karmasañcaye॥	As a result of this (nirvikalpa) samadhi millions of results of actions, accumulated in this beginingless world over past and present births, are destroyed, and pure dharma (helpful to the realization of Truth) grows. The experts in Yoga, call this as a rain cloud of dharmas, because it pours forth countless showers of the bliss of dharma. The entire network of desires is fully destroyed and the accumulated actions known as merits and demerits are fully rooted by this Samadhi. -Translation by Swami Swahananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: वेदान्तपञ्चदशी (vedāntapañcadaśī) (1.59 - 61)

The eminent scholar T.M.P. Mahadevan, in his famous book “The Panchadasi of Bharātitirtha Vidyārana” further clarifies thus: 

“The ātman, when separated thus from the adjuncts that hide it, realizes its identity with Brahman. Mokṣa (release) is the achievement of this ideal. It is the realization of the truth enshrined in the major text, ‘That thou art’ (tat tvaṃ asi). The way to reach the end is through inquiry. ‘The Self is to be seen, heard, reflected on, and contemplated.’ In samādhi, the ills of samsāra disappear. When the transcendental Self is seen, all actions cease; the fire of wisdom consumes the deeds and their cause, ignorance. Samādhi is called dharmamegha (the cloud of dharma), for it showers truth, pours forth in torrents the nectar of virtue. Liberated from the shackles of saṃsāra, the self comes to its own. The knower of ātman crosses all sorrow and never more does he return to empirical life and get entangled in the meshes of māyā”

Specifically speaking, the verse #1.60 is a bridge-builder between the two schools. Please recollect that धर्ममेघ समाधि (dharmamegha samādhi – cloud of righteousness atonement) which is highlighted represents the spiritual stream of highest wisdom that that is showered upon the as a धर्ममेघ समाधि (dharmamegha -  cloudburst of virtue) as explained by Swami Gurubhaktananda (Chimmaya Mission Order), as part of his famous lecture on this verse.: 

“This verse expands on the previous verse by describing the spontaneous actions of a realised saint with a beautiful simile – “A Cloudburst of Dharma”. It is all about poetry . . . Saints are the living examples of how to live in this world. All the beautiful qualities become manifest and magnified in their personality. The sage becomes a personification of Righteousness. His mind glows with Purity. There is no Ego which lies in wait to usurp these qualities. He becomes a beaconlight to light the path of others. Dharma Megham: This is not just an ordinary rain of Dharma, but a “Cloudburst of Dharma”, a rain that is magnified many times in size as occurs during the Monsoon season. Yoga Vittama: In Samskrit, the regular word “Yoga-Vit” has the comparative form “Yoga-Vittara” and the superlative form “Yoga-Vittama”. Thus Yoga Vittama is the one who is a Master of Yoga, perfect in every way. Again, we see an exuberance of expression. The full meaning of the simile comes through in these Padas, with great poetic beauty and bountifulness of expression. Dharma Amrita: The “Dharma Megham” is a downpour not of water but of “the Nectar of Dharma”. It is not an ordinary downpour, but a Dhaaraah, which indicates a “nonstop torrent”. And to cap the whole simile, we have the expressive word Sahasrashah, trying to tell us that it is gushing down “thousands of drops at a time”!  

 Similarly, श्री कृष्नानन्दस्वामिन् (śrī kṛṣnānandasvāmin – Swami Sri Krishnanda), a senior pontiff in the श्री शिवानन्द आश्रमम् (śrī śivānanda āśramam – Sri Shivananda Ashrama) also gives a very detailed explanation of the state of धर्ममेघ समाधि (dharmamegha samādhi – cloud of righteousness atonement), as part of his famous talks on the वेदान्तपञ्चदशी (vedāntapañcadaśī). To quote him:

“In Dhyana or meditation there is a twofold consciousness of the meditator and meditated, while in Samadhi or absorption there is the transformation of all Vrittis into the Brahmakara-Vritti which destroys ignorance, desires and actions, and settles down, extinguishing itself like burnt camphor. In the state of Savikalpa-Samadhi there are Sattvika-Vrittis which cause the waking up of the Yogi into normal life. Even these Vrittis get transcended in Nirvikalpa-Samadhi. It is in this highest Samadhi, in which Consciousness rests in its own nature, that there will be a rain of the highest divine qualities, and a flood of virtue; hence this Samadhi goes by the name Dharmamegha (cloud of righteousness). Here comes the liberation of the soul, all Karmas having been completely abolished. The liberated ones are grouped in a graduated series in accordance with the degree of Sattva still present in them, and are called Brahmavit, Brahmavidvara, Brahmavidvariya, and Brahmavidvarishtha, when they are in the states of Sattvapatti (where there are flashes of Brahman), Asamsakti (wherein one is spontaneously free from all attachments), Padarthabhavana (in which there is only the perception of Brahman alone in everything), and Turiya (where individual consciousness gets permanently transfigured in the experience of Brahman). The virtue that is showered in Dharmamegha-Samadhi is not the ethical quality to which we are accustomed in this world, but the spontaneous expression of the highest Reality itself. As luminosity is the very nature of the sun and does not stand in need of any effort on the part of the agent for its manifestation, this Samadhi puts an end to the entire network of past impressions embedded in the mind even unconsciously, and removes by root the entire conglomeration of the causes of further experience. On account of the direct realisation of the stupendous interrelatedness of things, the Yogi knows the highest in his knowledge and does not consider himself as an agent of actions which will bear any particularised fruits or results in the future. This is Aparoksha-Jnana or direct knowledge, on having attained which the perception of Reality becomes as clear as the observation of a fruit on one’s palm. This is the maturity of deep meditation practised after the acquisition of Paroksha-Jnana or indirect knowledge in the form of a correct understanding of the meaning of the great Upanishadic sentence, Tat-Tvam-Asi. While indirect knowledge received from a preceptor destroys all palpable sins, direct knowledge burns up the results even of the deeds done prior to such knowledge, and blazes up Brahman-realisation shining like the midday sun thoroughly destroying all darkness.”

Interestingly, a similar concept exists in Buddhism as well. For example, the धर्ममेघ समाधि (dharmamegha samādhi – cloud of righteousness atonement) dicussed here in the case of a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate), to the best of my understanding corresponds to the धर्ममेघ भूमि (dharmamegha bhūmi – cloud of dharma land) which is last stage (tenth) in the दशविध बोधिचित्त भूमि (daśavidha bodhicitta bhūmi – tenfold enlightenment lands).  

Again, in my humble understanding, what is referred as दशविध बोधिचित्त भूमि (daśavidha bodhicitta bhūmi – tenfold enlightenment lands) in Buddhist soteriological model would correspond to दश कार्याणि (daśa kāryāṇi – tenfold acts) in terms of the शैव सिद्धान्त दर्शन (śaiva siddhānta darśana) and thus accordingly धर्ममेघ भूमि (dharmamegha bhūmi – cloud of dharma land) would in turn correspond to the शिव भोग (śiva bhoga – divine experience) in the latter school.

    In other words, a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate) is essentially an परमसिद्ध (parama siddha - accomplished soul) according to சுத்தாதுவைத்தசைவசித்தாந்ததரிசனம் / शुद्धाद्वैतशैवसिद्धान्तदर्शन (suddātuvaittacaivasiddāntadaricaṉam / śuddhādvaitaśaivasiddhāntadarśana – prestene non-dualistic final auspiscious accomplishment philosophy). For example, in the famous treatise शिवज्ञानबोधम् (śivajñānabōdham), which according to some subject matter experts, occurs in the ज्ञान/विद्या पाद (jñāna/vidyā pāda – wisdom / knowledge section) of the sacred रौरागम शास्त्र (raurāgama śāstra) declares thus: 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
शिवेनैक्यं गतः सिद्धः तदधीनस्ववृत्तिकः। मलमायाद्यसंसपृष्टो भवति स्वानुभूतिमान्॥	śivenaikyaṃ gataḥ siddhaḥ tadadhīnasvavṛttikaḥ। malamāyādyasaṃsapṛṣṭo bhavati svānubhūtimān॥	The accomplished self that has attained oneness with Shiva with his very existence dependent on Him, and thereby untouched by mala, maya etc., is endowed with the experience of his self. -Translation by Dr. T. Ganesan
Sanskrit Reference: शिवज्ञानबोधम् (śivajñānabōdham) (10)

परमाचार्य शिवाग्रयोगिन् (paramācārya śivāgrayogin) in his famous लघुटीका (laghuṭīkā – short commentary) on the above verse, further explains thus: 

 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तत्र सिद्धिः अन्तः करणशीकरणं तद्वान् सिद्धः। अत एव शिवेवैनक्यं गतः शिवानन्यत्वं प्राप्तः अत एव मलमायाद्यसंस्पृष्टः मलेनणावेन मयया आदिशब्देन कर्मणा च असंस्पृष्टः शिवायत्तस्वव्यापारः तयेरैक्यात् शिवव्यापारीभूतस्वव्यापारैत्यर्थः। स्वानुभूतिमान् भवति स्वस्य शिअवेनैक्यंगतस्य आत्मनः अनुभूतिः शिवानन्यतया अनुभवः तद्वान् भवतीत्यर्थः॥	tatra siddhiḥ antaḥ karaṇaśīkaraṇaṃ tadvān siddhaḥ। ata eva śivevainakyaṃ gataḥ śivānanyatvaṃ prāptaḥ ata eva malamāyādyasaṃspṛṣṭaḥ malenaṇāvena mayayā ādiśabdena karmaṇā ca asaṃspṛṣṭaḥ śivāyattasvavyāpāraḥ tayeraikyāt śivavyāpārībhūtasvavyāpāraityarthaḥ। svānubhūtimān bhavati svasya śiavenaikyaṃgatasya ātmanaḥ anubhūtiḥ śivānanyatayā anubhavaḥ tadvān bhavatītyarthaḥ॥	By siddhi – accomplishment – the complete controll of the internal organ is meant; he who possesses that is the accomplished one – siddha. Because of this he has realized the oneness – non difference from Siva; because of that he is untouched – become himself free from - mala – anava, maya and karma. Because of that (again) he is completely depenednt on Him – all His activiies or depenedent on Siva. Because of their oneness all the acts of Siva have become his acts. He becomes endowed with the experiences of his self. – experiences of his own self which has realized its non-difference from Siva. -Translation by Dr. T. Ganesan
Sanskrit Reference: शिवज्ञानबोधलघुटीका (śivajñānabōdhalaghuṭīkā) (10)

In the Tamil version of சிவஞானபோதம் (sivajñānabodam), which is considered as the main among the 14 மெய்கண்ட சாத்திரங்கள் (meikaṇḍa sāttiraṅgaḻ - truth revealing scriptures) was originally revealed to the noble saint and preceptor த ஸ்ரீ மெய்கண்டதேவர் (srī meykaṇṭatēvar)  – the foremost among the புறசந்தானகுரவர்கள் (puṟacantāṉakuravarkaḷ - external eternal precepters) also reiterates the same point.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
அவனே தானே ஆகிய அந்நெறி ஏகன் ஆகி இறைபணி நிற்க மலமாயை தன்னொடு வல்வினை இன்றே.	avaṉē tāṉē ākiya anneṟi ēkaṉ āki iṟaipaṇi niṟka malamāyai taṉṉoṭu valviṉai iṉṟē	As the lord becomes one with the Soul in its human condition, so let the Soul become one with Him and perceive all its actions to be His. Then will it lose all its Mala, Maya, and Karma -translation by Nallaswami Pillai
Tamil Reference: சிவஞானபோதம் (sivajñānabodam) (10)

Again, बादरायण महऋषि (bādarāyaṇa mahaṛṣi) in his famous ब्रह्मसूत्र (brahmasūtra) reiterates that ब्रह्म ज्ञान (brahma jñāna - spiritual elightenment) anhilates all कर्म (karma – fate) including what is referred as उत्तर पूर्व अघ्यः (uttara pūrva aghyaḥ - later and earlier sins).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तधिगम उत्तरपूर्वाघयोरश्लेषविनाशौ॥	tadhigama uttarapūrvāghayoraśleṣavināśau||	On the realization of That, there occur the non attachment and destruction of the subsequent and the previous since respectively, because it is declared so. -Translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra) (4.1.13)

श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda), as part of his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above सूत्र (sūtra - aphorism) further explains very clearly thus, by citing from various श्रुति वाक्यानि (śruti vākyāni – revelatory statements)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
त्वद्यप्रदेशात्। तथाहि व्रहम्विद्याप्रक्रियायां संभाव्यमानसंवन्धस्यागामिनो दुरितस्यानभ्संबन्धं विदुपो व्यपदिशति - ' यथा पुष्करपलशाअपो न श्रिलष्यन्त एवमेवंविदि पापं कर्म न श्र्लिश्यते' (छा ४।१४।३)। इति। तथा विनाशमपि पूर्वेपचिदस्य दुरितस्य व्यपदिशति - 'तद्येषिकतूलमग्रौ प्रोतं प्रदूयेतैवं हास्ये सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते' (छा ५ ।२४।३) इति। अयमपरः कर्मशयव्यपदेशो भवति - ' भिद्यते हृदय प्रन्थिश्छित्यन्ते सर्वसंशयाः। इयन्ते जास्य कर्माणि तश्मिन्दृष्टे परावरे' (मुन् उप २।२।८) इति।	tvadyapradeśāt। tathāhi vrahamvidyāprakriyāyāṃ saṃbhāvyamānasaṃvandhasyāgāmino duritasyānabhsaṃbandhaṃ vidupo vyapadiśati - ' yathā puṣkarapalaśāapo na śrilaṣyanta evamevaṃvidi pāpaṃ karma na śrliśyate' (chā 4.14.3) । iti। tathā vināśamapi pūrvepacidasya duritasya vyapadiśati - 'tadyeṣikatūlamagrau protaṃ pradūyetaivaṃ hāsye sarve pāpmānaḥ pradūyante' (chā 5.24.3) iti। ayamaparaḥ karmaśayavyapadeśo bhavati - 'bhidyate hṛdaya pranthiśchityante sarvasaṃśayāḥ। iyante jāsya karmāṇi taśmindṛṣṭe parāvare' (mun upa 2.2.8) iti।	Because it is so declared in the scriptures. Thus it is declared in the course of dealing with knowledge of Brahman that a future sin that might be expetced to arise in the usual way does not arise in the case of man of knowledge. “As water does not cling to lotus leaf, so no evil deed clings to him who knows this” (Cha 4.14.3). Similarly scriptures declare the destruction of previously accumoulated evil deed : “As the finers of the Ishika reed when thrown into the fire are burned, thus all the sins are burned” (Cha 5.24.3). The extinction of works the following passage also declares. “The fetter of the heart is broken, all doubts are solved, extinguished are all his works when he has been beheld who is high and low” (Mu. Upa. 2.2.8). -translation by V. Panoli
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.1.13)

In fact, according to पूर्वमीमांसदर्शन (pūrvamīmāṃsadarśana – prior inquiry philosophy),  such a पूर्व क्रिया क्षये (pūrva kriyā kṣaye – exhaustion of past karma) is a pre-requisite for मुक्ति (mukti - liberation) for, after all, no one can get liberated with his or her backlogs still remaining. This fact is testified in the पूर्वमीमांसदर्शन (pūrvamīmāṃsadarśana – prior inquiry philosophy) by one of its most renowned आचार्याः (ācāryāḥ - preceptors) viz. श्री कुमारिलभाट्टाचार्य (śrī kumārilabhāṭṭācārya), who while discussing the topic of संबन्धाक्षेप परिहार (saṃbandhākṣepa parihāra –relation-objection removal) explains thus in his famous work मीमांसश्लोकवार्त्तिकम् (mīmāṃsaślokavārttikam – poetic explanation on inquiry) which is a gloss on the जैमिनीयमीमांससूत्रशाबरभाष्य (jaiminīyamīmāṃsasūtraśābarabhāṣya – Shabara’s commentary on Jaiminya Mimamsa Sutra).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न हि कारणवत् किञ्चदक्षयित्वेन गम्यते। तस्मात् कर्मक्षयादेव हेत्वभावे न मुच्यते॥ न ह्याभावत्मकं मुक्त्वा मोक्षनित्यत्वकारणम्। न च क्रियायाः कस्याश्चिदभावः फलमिष्यते॥ तत्र शातात्मतत्त्वानाम् भोगत् पूर्वक्रियाक्षये। उत्तरप्रचयासत्त्वाद् देहो नोत्पद्यते पुनः॥ कर्मजन्योपभोगार्थं शरीरं न प्रवर्तते। तद्भावे न कश्चिद्ध हेतुस्तत्रावतिष्ठते॥ मोक्षार्थो न प्रवर्तेत काम्यनिषिद्धयोः। नित्यनैमितिक्के कुर्यात् प्रय्तावायजिहासया॥	na hi kāraṇavat kiñcadakṣayitvena gamyate। tasmāt karmakṣayādeva hetvabhāve na mucyate॥ na hyābhāvatmakaṃ muktvā mokṣanityatvakāraṇam। na ca kriyāyāḥ kasyāścidabhāvaḥ phalamiṣyate॥ tatra śātātmatattvānām bhogat pūrvakriyākṣaye। uttarapracayāsattvād deho notpadyate punaḥ॥ karmajanyopabhogārthaṃ śarīraṃ na pravartate। tadbhāve na kaściddha hetustatrāvatiṣṭhate॥ mokṣārtho na pravarteta kāmyaniṣiddhayoḥ। nityanaimitikke kuryāt praytāvāyajihāsayā॥	Because nothing that has a cause (i.e., that which is caused) is ever known to be imperishable (eternal), therefore one could be delivered (i.e., Deliverance would be possible) only through the absence of the cause (of bondage)—(an absence) due to exhaustion (by fruition) of all karma (karma being the sole cause of bondage). Barring its negative character, there is no other ground for the eternality of Deliverance. And no negation can ever bo the effect of any action (therefore Deliverance cannot be held to be the effect of Knowledge). The fact (as to the manner of Deliverance) is that for those that have come to know of the real character of Self,all their past actions having been exhausted by fruition, and there being no subsequent residue (of actions),the body is never again produced (and this is what is meant by Deliverance). It is only for the purpose of enjoying the results of our past actions that our body is produced ; consequently, when there are no actions (left to bring about their results),there is no cause left for such productions (of the body). One desiring Deliverance, therefore, would not engage in (i.e., perform) such actions as are either prohibited or are enjoined with a view to the attainment of certain (material) results. But he would continue to perform those that are enjoined as necessary (and to be performed daily) and those that are enjoined as to be performed on certain specific occasions (such as eclipses and the like),—in order to avoid the sin (accruing from the non-performance of such actions). -Translation by Ganganath Jha
Sanskrit Reference: मीमांसश्लोकवार्त्तिकम् (mīmāṃsaślokavārttikam) (16.106 - 110)

Another important, inference that we can arrive at from the above citation is that even according to पूर्व मीमांस दर्शन (pūrva mīmāṁsa darśana) the role of ज्ञान (jñāna - knowledge) in process of attaining मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation) is emphasised.  In fact, श्री कुमारिलभाट्टाचार्य (śrī kumārilabhāṭṭācārya)  discusses in detail about the concept of ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयमार्ग (jñānakarmasamuccayamārga – path of synergizing action and knowledge) elsewhere in his तन्त्र वार्तिक (tantra vārtika – exposition on the sacred sciences) which is a वार्तिक (vārtika - exposition) written by him on the magnum opus जैमिनीयमीमांससूत्रशाबरभाष्य (jaiminīyamīmāṃsasūtraśābarabhāṣya – Shabara’s commentary on Jaiminya Mimamsa Sutra).

For example, in the following extracts श्री कुमारिलभाट्टाचार्य (śrī kumārilabhāṭṭācārya) discussed as to how both कर्मवाद (karmavāda – doctrine of action) & अर्थ/ज्ञानवाद (artha/jñānavāda – doctrine of meaning / knowledge) particularly in terms of आत्मस्वरूपज्ञ (ātmasvarūpajña – knowledge of one’s own self) can seemlessly be leveraged for attaining मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सर्वत्रैव हि विज्नानम् सम्स्कारत्वेन गम्य् अते । परान्गम् चात्मविज्नानाद् अन्यत्रेत्य् अवधारनात् ॥ आत्मज्नानम् हि सम्योगप्र्थक्त्वत् क्रत्वर्थपुरुसर्थत्वेन ज्न्द्यते तेन विना परलोकफलेसु कर्मसु प्रव्र्त्तिनिव्र्त्त्यसम्भवात्। तथा य आत्मापहतपाप्मा विजरो विम्र्त्युर् विसोको विजिघत्सोऽपिपासह् सत्यकामह् सत्यसन्कल्पह् सोऽन्वेस्तव्यह् स विजिज्नासितव्यह् तथा मन्तव्यो बोद्धव्यह् तथात्मानम् उपासित इति। कामवादलोकवादवचनविसेसैर् जिज्नासामननसहितात्मज्नानकेवलावबोधपर्यन्तस्पस्तात्मतत्त्वज्नानविधानापेक्सितवाक्यान्तरोपात्तद्विधाभ्युदयनिह्स्रेयसरूपफलसम्बन्धह् स सर्वाम्स् च लोकून् आप्नोति सर्वाम्स् च कामान् आप्नोतिति। तरति सोकम् आत्मवित् तथा स यदि पित्र्लोककामो ह्हवति सन्कल्पाद् एवास्य पितरह् समुत्तिस्थन्ति तेन पित्र्लोकेन सम्पन्नो महियत इत्यादिना योगजन्यानिमाद्यस्तगुनैस्वर्यफलानि वर्नितानि। तथा स खल्व् एवर्न् वर्तयन् यावदायुसम् ब्रह्मलोकम् अभिसम्पद्यते न स पुनर् आवर्तत इत्य् अपुनराव्र्त्त्यात्मकपरमात्मप्राप्त्यवस्थाफलवचनम्। अप्रकरनगतत्वेनानैकान्तिकक्रतुसम्बन्धासम्बन्धाच् च नान्जनखादिरस्रुववाक्यादिफलस्रुतिवद् अर्थवादत्वम्। न च ज्नानविधानेन कर्मसम्बन्धवारनम् । प्रत्यास्रर्नवर्ननियतानि नित्यनैर्नित्तिककर्मान्य् आपि पूर्वक्र्तदुरितक्सयार्थम् अकरननिमित्तानागतप्रत्यवायपरिहारार्थर्न् च कर्तव्यानि। न च तेसाम् भिन्नप्रयोजनत्वाद् भिन्नमार्गत्वाच् च बाधविकल्पपरस्परान्गान्गिभावाह् सम्भवनिइ।	sarvatraiva hi vijnānam samskāratvena gamy ate । parāngam cātmavijnānād anyatrety avadhāranāt ॥ ātmajnānam hi samyogaprthaktvat kratvarthapurusarthatvena jndyate tena vinā paralokaphalesu karmasu pravrttinivrttyasambhavāt। tathā ya ātmāpahatapāpmā vijaro vimrtyur visoko vijighatso'pipāsah satyakāmah satyasankalpah so'nvestavyah sa vijijnāsitavyah tathā mantavyo boddhavyah tathātmānam upāsita iti। kāmavādalokavādavacanavisesair jijnāsāmananasahitātmajnānakevalāvabodhaparyantaspastātmatattvajnānavidhānāpeksitavākyāntaropāttadvidhābhyudayanihsreyasarūpaphalasambandhah sa sarvāms ca lokūn āpnoti sarvāms ca kāmān āpnotiti। tarati sokam ātmavit tathā sa yadi pitrlokakāmo hhavati sankalpād evāsya pitarah samuttisthanti tena pitrlokena sampanno mahiyata ityādinā yogajanyānimādyastagunaisvaryaphalāni varnitāni। tathā sa khalv evarn vartayan yāvadāyusam brahmalokam abhisampadyate na sa punar āvartata ity apunarāvrttyātmakaparamātmaprāptyavasthāphalavacanam। aprakaranagatatvenānaikāntikakratusambandhāsambandhāc ca nānjanakhādirasruvavākyādiphalasrutivad arthavādatvam। na ca jnānavidhānena karmasambandhavāranam । pratyāsrarnavarnaniyatāni nityanairnittikakarmāny āpi pūrvakrtaduritaksayārtham akarananimittānāgatapratyavāyaparihārārtharn ca kartavyāni। na ca tesām bhinnaprayojanatvād bhinnamārgatvāc ca bādhavikalpaparasparāngāngibhāvāh sambhavanii।	In all cases, knowledge is always found to be a means of purifying, and as such auxiliary to something else; with the sole exception of the knowledge of Self. As for the knowledge of Self; both by Conjunction and Disjunction it is found to help the sacrifice as well as the Person; because unless one knows his self (to be something other than the body that perishes) he would never undertake the sacrifices whose results are said to accrue to the man in another birth. And then again, such passages as—“the Self free from all evil...is to be sought after, &c.,” “one should worship the Self” – lay down the knowledge of the self as accomplished by a process accompanied by due reflection, &c; and then from such knowledge, we find that there accrues to the agents both kinds of result – Happiness as well final deliverance, as is shown by the following passages :- “He obtains all the worlds and all desires, passes beyond all sorrow. &c., &c.” - which speaks of all the eight perfections of yoga accruing to the person knowing the self; and the passage – “passing his life thus he, after death reaches the regions of Brahma and from there he never returns” – which point to the attainment of Supreme Self (Final Deliverance) also as following from the due knowledge of the Self...Nor it can be rightly urged that, because the Self is laid down as the object of knowledge, it cannot have any connections with actions. Because the duties, necessary as well as occasional, relating to the various castes and conditions of life, have got to be performed, for the double purpose of destroying the evil effects of former sins, and the removal of all chance of the appearance of the sin that would follow from the non-performance of the necessary duties. And inasmuch as these duties on the one hand, and the knowledge of Self on the other, have distinct purposes to fulfil, and proceed on two entirely different lines, they cannot be said either to reject each other, or to be accepted as optional alternatives, or to form parts of one another. -Translation by Ganganath Jha
Sanskrit Reference: तन्त्रवार्तिक (tantravārtika) (1.3.9)

This fact is very clearly summarized by आचार्य श्री सोमेश्वरभट्ट (ācārya śrī someśvarabhaṭṭa) in his न्यायासुधा (nyāyāsudhā) which is a famous टीका (ṭīkā - gloss) on the तन्त्र वार्तिक (tantra vārtika – exposition on the sacred sciences). Here, in the following extract from the न्यायासुधा (nyāyāsudhā), the need for and role of आत्मस्वरूपज्ञ (ātmasvarūpajña – cognition of self-nature) in attaining मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
नित्यनैमित्तिकैर् एव कुर्वाणो दुरितक्षयम्। ज्ञानम् च विमलीकुर्वन्न् अभ्यासेन तु पाचयेत्॥ अभ्यासात् पक्वविज्ञानः कैवल्यम् लभते नरः।	nityanaimittikair eva kurvāṇo duritakṣayam। jñānam ca vimalīkurvann abhyāsena tu pācayet॥ abhyāsāt pakvavijñānaḥ kaivalyam labhate naraḥ।	One who is destroying sin by regular and occasional [ritual] deeds, purifying his knowledge, will bring it to fruition by means of practice. The man whose knowledge is ripened as a result of experience obtains isolation. -Translation by Mesquita
Sanskrit Reference: न्यायासुधा (nyāyāsudhā)

Coming back to उत्तर मीमाम्स दर्शन (uttara mīmāmsa darśana – posterior inquiry philosophy), श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavatpāda) in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above ब्रह्मसूत्र (brahmasūtra) refers to the following verses from the छाण्दोग्य उपनिषद् (chāṇdogya upaniṣad) uses a beautiful analogy to explain as to how all the past actions are completely burnt out by the fire of knowledge.

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तद्यये षीकातूलमग्नौ प्रोतं प्रदूयेतैवं हास्य सर्वे पाप्मानः प्रदूयन्ते।	tadyaye ṣīkātūlamagnau protaṁ pradūyetaivaṁ hāsya sarve pāpmānaḥ pradūyante|	Just as fluffy tip of a reed placed in fire burns away completely; similarly all sins are burnt away. -Translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:श्रीमद्  छान्दोग्योपनिषद् (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad) (5.24.3)

Again, श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavatpāda) in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above श्रुति वाक्य (śruti vākya – revelatory statement) further explains thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तद्येषिकायास्तूलमग्रमग्नौ प्रोक्तं प्रक्षिप्तं प्रदूयेत प्रदह्येत क्ष्रिप्रमेवं हास्य विदुषः सर्वातम्भूतस्य सर्वानानामृत्तः सर्वे निरवशिष्टाः पापमानि धर्माधर्माख्या अनेकजन्मसञ्चिता इह च प्राज्ञानोन्पत्तेज्ञार्नासहभाविनश्च प्रदूयन्ते प्रदह्येरन्वर्तमानशरीरारम्भकपापम्वर्जम् लक्ष्यं प्रति मुक्तेषुवत्प्रवृत्तफलत्वात्तस्य न दाहः। य येतदेवं विद्वानाग्निहोत्रं जुहोति भुण्क्ते॥	tadyeṣikāyāstūlamagramagnau proktaṃ prakṣiptaṃ pradūyeta pradahyeta kṣripramevaṃ hāsya viduṣaḥ sarvātambhūtasya sarvānānāmṛttaḥ sarve niravaśiṣṭāḥ pāpamāni dharmādharmākhyā anekajanmasañcitā iha ca prājñānonpattejñārnāsahabhāvinaśca pradūyante pradahyeranvartamānaśarīrārambhakapāpamvarjam lakṣyaṃ prati mukteṣuvatpravṛttaphalatvāttasya na dāhaḥ। ya yetadevaṃ vidvānāgnihotraṃ juhoti bhuṇkte॥	Further, just as the cotton of the Reed-plant when thrown on the Fire,- becomes burnt up - quickly,-even so are burnt up all the evils-known by the name of 'merit and demerit '-without any cxception,-all that had become gathered through several births, and also those that had come into existence prior to and along with the knowledge (of vaiśvānara),- of the man who knows the vaiśvānara, the Self of All, the Eater of all Food ;-the only evil left unburnt would be that to which the birth of the present body had been due; this last evil is not burnt up, because like the arrow that has been shot, its effects have already begun to appear .-All this happens to one who knowing this offers the Agnihotra,- i.e. eats food. -Translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद्  छान्दोग्योपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य  (śrīmad chāndogyopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya)  (5.24.3)

However, an important point to remember is that although a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – liberated in life) has completely attained the highest ब्रह्मज्ञान (brahmajñāna – spiritual enlightenment), yet he continues to stay सशरीर (saśarīra – embodied) in his स्थूल भूत शरीर (sthūla bhūta śarīra – gross physical body) untill his प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced fate) is fully exhausted. This fact is testified in the following verses from सांख्य कारिका (sāṁkhya kārikā)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सम्यग्ज्ञानधिगमात् धर्मदीनामकाराणप्राप्तौ। तिष्टति संस्कारवशात् चक्रभ्रमिवद्धृतशरीरः॥	samyagjñānadhigamāt dharmadīnāmakārāṇaprāptau| tiṣṭati saṁskāravaśāt cakrabhramivaddhṛtaśarīraḥ||	By the attainment of perfect wisdom, Virtue and the rest become devoid of causal energy; yet the Spirit remains a while invested with body, as a potter's wheel continues to revolve by the force of the impulse previously imparted to it. -Translation by Gangadhar Jha
Sanskrit Reference: सांख्यकारिका (sāṁkhyakārikā) (67)

In सांख्य तत्त्व कौमुदी (sāṃkhya tattva kaumudī) which is a famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above text by  आचार्य श्री वाचस्पति मिश्र  (ācārya śrī vācaspati miśra) a very detailed explanation for the above कारिका (kārikā - verse) is provided, which I am quoting here for our better understanding. 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सम्यक् इति। तत्त्वसाक्षात्कारोदयादेवानादिरप्यनियत्विपाककालोऽपि कर्माशय प्रचयो दग्धबीजभाव्तया न जात्यायुर्भोगलक्षणाय फलाय कल्पते। क्लेशसलिलावसिक्तायां हि बुद्धिभूमौ कर्मबीजान्यङ्कुरं प्रसुवते। तत्त्वज्ञाननिदाघनिपीतसकलक्लेशसलिलायामूफरायां कुतः कर्मबीजानामङ्कुरप्रसवः? तदिदमुक्तम् "धर्मादीनामकारणप्राप्तौ" इति अकारणत्वप्राप्तावित्यर्थः। उत्पन्नतत्त्वज्ञानोऽपि च संस्कारवशात् तिष्ठति। कालपरिपाकवशा त्तूपरते संस्कारे निक्त्रियम्भवति। शरीरस्थितौ चः प्राब्धपरिपाकौ धर्माधर्मौ संस्कारौ। तथा चानुश्रुयते - "भोगेन त्वितरे क्षपयित्वाऽथ सम्पद्यते" इति " तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावत्र विमोक्षयेऽथ सम्पत्स्ये" इति च [छान्दोग्य ६।१।२)॥ प्रक्षीयमाणाविद्यासंस्कारावशेषश्च संस्कारस्तदूशात् तत्साप्रथ्यार्त् धृवशरीरस्तिष्ठति॥	samyak iti। tattvasākṣātkārodayādevānādirapyaniyatvipākakālo'pi karmāśaya pracayo dagdhabījabhāvtayā na jātyāyurbhogalakṣaṇāya phalāya kalpate। kleśasalilāvasiktāyāṃ hi buddhibhūmau karmabījānyaṅkuraṃ prasuvate। tattvajñānanidāghanipītasakalakleśasalilāyāmūpharāyāṃ kutaḥ karmabījānāmaṅkuraprasavaḥ? tadidamuktam "dharmādīnāmakāraṇaprāptau" iti akāraṇatvaprāptāvityarthaḥ। utpannatattvajñāno'pi ca saṃskāravaśāt tiṣṭhati। kālaparipākavaśā ttūparate saṃskāre niktriyambhavati। śarīrasthitau caḥ prābdhaparipākau dharmādharmau saṃskārau। tathā cānuśruyate - "bhogena tvitare kṣapayitvā'tha sampadyate" iti " tasya tāvadeva ciraṃ yāvatra vimokṣaye'tha sampatsye" iti ca [chāndogya 6.1.2)॥ prakṣīyamāṇāvidyāsaṃskārāvaśeṣaśca saṃskārastadūśāt tatsāprathyārt dhṛvaśarīrastiṣṭhati॥	When true knowledge appears, the ‘karmic residuum’ – even though it is beginingless and its time of fruitition is uncertain, - has its productivty destroyed and is unable to produce any ‘fruit’ in the shape of ‘birth, life and life`s experiences’. It is only when the ‘soil of the will’ is watered with the waters of the ‘kleshas’ (i.e., ignorance, egotism, love hate and clinging),that the ‘karmic seeds give out sprouts. so that when the said soil is rendered barren by reason of the waters of Ignorance and the rest having been sucked up by the heat of the ‘knowledge of Truth’, - how could there be any possibility of the ‘Karmic seeds sprouting up? With this view it is said -‘‘Virtue and the rest become devoid of causal energy-,”- i.e., they cease to be causes. Even so, when wisdom has .been attained, the body continues for a while, on account of the previous impulse just as, even after the action of the potter has ceased, the wheel continues to revolve on account of the momentum imparted to it. In due time, however, when the impulse becomes exhausted, it becomes inactive. In the continuance of the body, the impulse is supplied by such virtue and vice whose fruition has already commenced; as is declared in śruti - " Having exhausted the others by means of experience, the soul attains beatitude ” and ‘The delay is only so long as beatitude is not attained" [chāndogya 6.1.2], The ‘ impulse’ (to which the continuance of the Body is due) is in the remnant of that impulse which had been imparted by the Disappearing Ignorance; it is true that on account of the momentum of this impulse the Spirit continues to be invested with the body for a time. -Translation by Gangadhar Jha
Sanskrit Reference: सांख्यतत्त्वकौमुदी (sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī) (274)

सांख्यतत्त्वकौमुदी (sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī) (274)

Thus, the distinguishing characteristics of this state is that, as the जीवन् मुक्त (jīvanmukta – embodied liberate) is still alive (in the regular sense of the word), he continues to retain his स्थूल शरीर (sthūla śarira – gross body) operating from the भूत नीवृत् चैतन्यस्य (bhūta nīvṛt caitanyasya - physical realm of consciousness) to discharge his pending प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced fate). This is why, for example, the स्थूल भूत शरीराणि साधुनाम् (sthūla bhūta śarīrāṇi sādhunām - gross physical bodies of saints) include that for Bhagavaan Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa & Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi, even after ataining highest level of spiritual enlightenments, were still affected by deadly diseases like cancer etc.

Now, this leads us to several important questions. Firstly, why is this happening this way? How can such evolved souls be subject to such tortures? Do they deserve such an ill treatment? As the कर्म विधि (karma vidhi - law of karma) strongly says, only sinners will be punished and not the puritans. Does that mean these souls are not as pure and clean as they are supposed to be? Or does that mean the कर्म विधि (karma vidhi - law of karma) is buggy and unjust (for unnecessarily penalising an innocent)?  

Yes these are very valid questions raised by our logical brains. But deeper analysis will help us understand things better. And this is what I have learnt. Firstly, we should understand that, the कर्म नियति / विधि (karma niyati/vidhi - law of destiny/fate) are impeccable, and are uniformly applicable to one and all. It is a great leveler which does not have any vested interests. That is why Lord यम देव (yama deva – death god), the executive Head for governance of कर्म (karma- fate) is honoured with the title धर्म राज (dharma rājā - king of righteousness).  

Further, every क्रिया (kriyā - action) should have its corresponding प्रतिक्रिया (pratikriyā - reaction) irrespective of who does it. Whether he is a saint or not, if he has performed an कर्म (karma – activity), he has to bear its fruits. One has only अधिकार (adhikāra – right/authority) to decide on whether to perform his कर्माणि  (karmāṇi - actions) or not but once the कर्म (karma – activity) is performed, he has no अधिकार (adhikāra – right/authority) to escape from its फलानि (phalāni - fruits). This truth is declared very categorically to Arjuna by none other than भगवान् श्री कृष्ण (bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇa) Himself in his famous sermon – श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता (śrīmadbhagavadgītā),

Original	Transliteration	Translation
कर्मण्ये वाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन। मा कर्मफल हेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि ॥	karmaṇye vādhikāraste mā phaleṣu kadācana| mā karmaphala heturbhūrmā te saṅgo'stvakarmaṇi ||	Your right is for action alone, never for the results. Do not become the agent of the results of action. May you not have any inclination for inaction. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता (śrīmadbhagavadgītā) (2.47)

Again, श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavatpāda) in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above verse  further explains thus :

Original	Transliteration	Translation
कर्मण्येव अधिकारः न ज्ञाननिष्ठायां ते तव। तत्र च कर्म कुर्वतः मा फलेषु अधिकारः अस्तु कर्मफलतृष्णा मा भूत् कदाचन कस्याञ्चिदप्यवस्थायामित्यर्थः। यदा कर्मफले तृष्णा ते स्यात् तदा कर्मफलप्राप्तेः हेतुः स्याः एवं मा कर्मफलहेतुः भूः। यदा हि कर्मफलतृष्णाप्रयुक्तः कर्मणि प्रवर्तते तदा कर्मफलस्यैव जन्मनो हेतुर्भवेत्। यदि कर्मफलं नेष्यते किं कर्मणा दुःखरूपेण इति मा ते तव सङ्गः अस्तु अकर्मणि अकरणे प्रीतिर्मा भूत्।। यदि कर्मफलप्रयुक्तेन न कर्तव्यं कर्म कथं तर्हि कर्तव्यमिति उच्यते	karmaṇyēva adhikāraḥ na jñānaniṣṭhāyāṁ tē tava। tatra ca karma kurvataḥ mā phalēṣu adhikāraḥ astu karmaphalatr̥ṣṇā mā bhūt kadācana kasyāñcidapyavasthāyāmityarthaḥ। yadā karmaphalē tr̥ṣṇā tē syāt tadā karmaphalaprāptēḥ hētuḥ syāḥ ēvaṁ mā karmaphalahētuḥ bhūḥ। yadā hi karmaphalatr̥ṣṇāprayuktaḥ karmaṇi pravartatē tadā karmaphalasyaiva janmanō hēturbhavēt। yadi karmaphalaṁ nēṣyatē kiṁ karmaṇā duḥkharūpēṇa iti mā tē tava saṅgaḥ astu akarmaṇi akaraṇē prītirmā bhūt।। yadi karmaphalaprayuktēna na kartavyaṁ karma kathaṁ tarhi kartavyamiti ucyatē	Te, your; adhikarah, right; is karmani eva, for action alone, not for steadfastness in Knowledge. Even there, when you are engaged in action, you have ma kadacana, never, i.e. under no condition whatever; a right phalesu, for the results of action may you not have a hankering for the results of action. Whenever you have a hankering for the fruits of action, you will become the agent of aciring the results of action. Ma, do not; thus bhuh, become; karma-phalahetuh, the agent of aciring the results of action. For when one engages in action by being impelled by thirst for the results of action, then he does become the cause for the production of the results of action. Ma, may you not; astu, have; sangah, an inclination; akarmani, for inaction, thinking, 'If the results of work be not desired, what is the need of work which involves pain?' -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmadbhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.47)

But if this is the case, then does not that imply that even the जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate) has erred and which is why he is paying for it? Yes, that is absolutely true. He is only repaying for what he has already done. But the important point here is that he is bearing the परीत कर्माणाम् फलानि (parīta karmāṇām phalāni – fruits of past acts), which he must have performed sometime in his पूर्व जन्मानि (pūrva janmāni – previous lives) and whose फलानि (phalāni – fruits) wouldn’t  have fully ripened then and is ripening only in this जन्म (janma –life). In other words, these events are part of his प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced fate) and not आगम कर्म (āgama karma – approaching fate), which in simple words means, that these are प्रतिक्रियाः (pratikriyāḥ - reactions) to his own परीत कर्माणाम् (parīta karmāṇām – past acts) and not newly created क्रियाः (kriyāḥ - actions). Please remember that according to कर्मवाद (karmavāda – doctrine of fate) discovered by the Indian philsoplhical schools, प्रारब्ध / आरब्ध कर्म (prārabdha / ārabdha karma – commenced fate) is that portion of the total सञ्चित कर्म (sañcita karma – accumulated fate) that has ripened for experience in the सांप्रत जन्म (sāṃprata janma - present life). It is defined by भगवान् श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्यभगवत्पाद (bhagavān śrī ādi śaṅkarācāryabhagavatpāda) in one of his less known short treatise by name अपरोक्षाभूति (aparokṣāubhūti – immediate self realization) as

Original	Transliteration	Translation
कर्म जन्मान्तरीयं यत् प्रारब्धमिति कीर्तितम्। तत्तु जन्मान्त्राभावत् पुंसो नैवास्ति कर्हिचित्॥	karma janmāntarīyaṁ yat prārabdhamiti kīrtitam। tattu janmāntrābhāvat puṃso naivāsti karhicit॥	That karma which is done in a previous life is known as prarabdha (with respect to this life which it has brought forth). But such a prarabdha does not exist (for a man of knowledge), as he has no other birth. Translation by Swami Vimuktaanda (RKM order)
Sanskrit Reference: अपरोक्षाभूति (aparokṣāubhūti) (92)

It is referred in the Jaina theology as उदय कर्म (udaya karma – risen karma) and it is also referred as दृष्टजन्म कर्माशय (dṛṣṭajanma karmāśaya – determinate receptacle of karma) in the पतञ्जली योग सूत्र (patañjalī yoga sūtra) as it can be potentially predictable (by astrology and other techniques). I would like to quote here a even more comprehensive definition given by Swami Sivananda according to whom, “Prarabdha is that portion of the past karma which is responsible for the present body. That portion of the sanchita karma which influences human life in the present incarnation is called prarabdha. It is ripe for reaping. It cannot be avoided or changed. It is only exhausted by being experienced. You pay your past debts. Prarabdha karma is that which has begun and is actually bearing fruit. It is selected out of the mass of the sanchita karma.”  

It is something like this, even after a person who is riding on a cycle, stops pedalling, the cycle does not stop immediately, but continues to run slowly based on the past momentum. Moreover, this is a very clear instance of Non-Local Causation, that is, the कारण (kāraṇa - cause) may not necesarily belong to the current locale viz. the देशकाल याम (deśakāla yāma – spacetime coordinates) associated with the सांप्रत जन्म (sāṃprata janma - present life). However, its कार्याणि (kāryāṇi - effects) are felt (experienced) in this सांप्रत जन्म (sāṃprata janma - present life) itself.  In other words, from an epistemological perspective, in the case of the प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced fate), the triggering कारण (kāraṇa - cause) is beyond the percievable information event-horizon while its कार्याणि (kāryāṇi - effects) is well within the radar and that is why the former is considered as अदृष्ट कारण (adṛṣṭa kāraṇa – invisible cause). And since the underlying कारणत्व / निमितत्ता (kāraṇatva / nimitattā - causality) viz. in terms of the कारकवत् संबन्ध (kārakavat saṃbandha – causal relationship) between the प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced fate) and its मूल कारण (mūla kāraṇa – root cause), is not obviously determinable with mundane knwoedge, such अदृष्ट कारण (adṛṣṭa kāraṇa – invisible cause) are reffered in common man’s parlance as “luck”  or “fate”.        

The कौलालचक्र (kaulālacakra - potter’s wheel) anology originally cited in the सांख्य कारिका (sāṁkhya kārikā) (quoted above) also endorsed the same truth. In fact, this analogy has been lated adopted by many other philosophical schools including केवलाद्वैत दर्शन (kevalādvaita darśana – nondualstic philosophy) by भगवन् आदि शङ्कराचार्य (bhagavan ādi śaṅkarācārya). We have already discussed about this. Please recollect the famous “Butterfly Effect” example from the “Chaos Theory” in modern mathematics, and relate it to our point of discussion here and you will understand that the saints afterall have not sinned or erred in their current capacity, they are just reaping the effects of non-local causation. In other words, there could be considerable space-time lag, technically called as गर्बपोषण कालम् (garbapoṣaṇa kālam - gestation period), for कर्म विपाक (karma vipāka – ripening of fate), just as in physical nature, there is a time lag between sowing the seeds and actually reaping thier fruits. In reality such a space-time gestation can run acrossअनेक जीवित काल (aneka jīvita kāla – multiple lifetimes) as well.  

Does this mean that the saints are helpless victims of their own पूर्व कर्म (pūrva karma - past karmas), which they have not directly done now, due to the dictates of some merciless laws of nature? Then how different are these saints from the ordinary people? Afterall, these saints are supposed to have realised highest levels of अपरोक्ष ब्रह्म ज्ञान (aparokṣa brahma jñāna – direct / immediate spiritual enlightenment) which is technically on par with the पर ब्रह्म (para brahma – absolute divinity), who is Omnipotent, Omniscient & Omnipresent.

Yes, as the popular saying goes “விதி வலியது (viti valiyatu – fate is powerful)”; For afterall, as we already observed, the कर्म नियति (karma niyati – laws of karma) are not defined by ordinary human mortal but in reality these rules are impeccably based on perfect कारणत्व विद्या (kāraṇatva vidyā  - science of causality) wherein the कारण - कर्य संबन्ध (kāraṇa karya saṃbandha -  cause –effect relationship) are designed and governed by the उत्तर व्रतानि चैतन्यस्य (uttara vratāni  caitanyasya – higher realms of Consciousness) namely the ब्रह्म चैतन्य (brahma caitanya – divine consciousness)  and hence are fool proof.

In fact, this point is very categorically testified by महऋषि बादरयण (mahaṛṣi bādarayaṇa) as part of his फलाधिकरणम् (phalādhikaraṇam – section on fruits) in his famous ब्रह्मसूत्र (brahmasūtra)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
फलमत उपपत्तेः।	phalamata upapatteḥ|	The fruits of action is from Him, this being the logical position. -translation by Swami Ghambirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra) (3.2.38)

Thus, as testified above, the bestower of फलानि (phalāni- fruits) for all kinds of सर्व कर्म (sarva karma – all actions) is none other than परब्रह्मन् (parabrahman- supreme divinity) in accordance with one’s अनादिस्वरूप योग्यत (anādisvarūpa yogyata). The Divine dictum expressed by the popular idiom “what he sows, he shall reap” is the essence of कर्म नियति (karma niyati – laws of karma). Again, the age old wisdom of proverb “முற்பகல் செய்யின் பிற்பகல் விளையும் (muṟpakal ceyyiṉ piṟpakal viḷaiyum – what is sown earlier day is reaped the next day)” also reiterates the same truth.

According to श्री मध्वाचार्य (śrī madhvācārya), the परब्रह्मन् (para brahman- supreme divinity) on his own accord decides which part of the सञ्चित कर्म (sañcita karma – accumulated fate) to bear fruit in this जन्म (janma – birth / life). In other words, the विधि / नियम (vidhi / niyama – rule / law) that one has to consume his कर्म फल (karma phala – karmic fruit) according to his पूर्व कर्म (pūrva karma – past action) is defined and governed by ब्रह्म सङ्कल्प (brahma saṅkalpa -  Divine Design / Will) and hence cannot be easily broken.  For instance, in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above सूत्र (sūtra - aphorism) declares thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
फलम् अतः प्रस्तुतात् ईशात् न कर्मतः? उपपत्तेः। ईशस्य चेतनत्वेन फलदानसम्भवात् कर्मणः अचेत्नत्वात् तद्योगात्।	phalam ataḥ prastutāt īśāt na karmataḥ? upapatteḥ। īśasya cetanatvena phaladānasambhavāt karmaṇaḥ acetnatvāt tadyogāt।	The fruit (of karma) is bestowed by the Lord being discussed here, but not by the Karma (itself). Whence? For, that alone is reasonable; bestowal of fruit is possible by the Lord since He is sentient whereas Karma being insentient is incompetent for that. -translation by Dr. Ragavendra Katti
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र मध्वभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra madhvabhāṣya) (3.2 39)

In fact, this point is very clearly explained by श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya) in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above सूत्र (sūtra - aphorism):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तस्वैव ब्रह्मणो व्य्वहारिक्यामीशित्रीशितव्यविभागावस्थायामयमन्यः स्वभावे वर्णयते। यदेतदिष्टोनिष्टव्यामिश्रलक्षणं कर्मफलं संसारगोचरं त्रिविधं प्रसिद्धं जन्तुनां किमेततत्कर्मणो भवत्याहोस्विदीश्वरादिति भवति विचारणा। तत्र तावत्प्रतिपाद्यते फलमत् ईश्वराब्धवितुमहेति। कुतः - उपपत्तेः। स हि सर्वाध्यक्षः सृष्टिस्थितिसंहारान्विचित्रान्विदधदेशकालविशेषाभिज्ञत्वात्कर्मिणां कर्मानुरूपं फलं संपादयतीत्युपपद्यते। कर्नणस्तवनुXअणविनाशिनः कालान्तरभावि फलं भवतीत्यनुपपन्नम्। आभावाद्भावानुत्पत्तेः। स्यादेतत् कर्मविनश्यत्स्वकालमेव स्वानुरूपं फलं जनयित्वा विनश्यति तत्फलं कालन्तरीतं कर्त्रा भोक्षयत् इति। तदपि न परिशुध्यति प्राग्भोत्लृसंबन्धात्फलत्वानुपपत्तेः। यत् कालं हि यत्सुखं दुःखं वात्मना भुज्यते तस्यैव लोके फलत्वं प्रसिद्धम्। नह्यसंबन्धस्यात्मना सुखस्य दुःखस्य व फलत्वं प्रतियन्ति लौकिकाः। अथोच्येत मा भूत्कर्मानन्तरं फलोत्पादः। कर्मकार्यादपूर्वात्फलमुत्पत्स्यत् इति। तदपि नोपपद्यते। अपूर्वस्याचेतन्स्य काष्ठलोष्ठसमस्य चेतनेनाप्रवर्तितस्य प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तेः। तदस्तित्त्वे च प्रमाणाभावात्। अर्थापत्तिः प्रमाणमिति चेत्। न। ईश्वरसिद्धेरर्थापत्तिक्षयात्॥	tasvaiva brahmaṇo vyvahārikyāmīśitrīśitavyavibhāgāvasthāyāmayamanyaḥ svabhāve varṇayate। yadetadiṣṭoniṣṭavyāmiśralakṣaṇaṃ karmaphalaṃ saṃsāragocaraṃ trividhaṃ prasiddhaṃ jantunāṃ kimetatatkarmaṇo bhavatyāhosvidīśvarāditi bhavati vicāraṇā। tatra tāvatpratipādyate phalamat īśvarābdhavitumaheti। kutaḥ - upapatteḥ। sa hi sarvādhyakṣaḥ sṛṣṭisthitisaṃhārānvicitrānvidadhadeśakālaviśeṣābhijñatvātkarmiṇāṃ karmānurūpaṃ phalaṃ saṃpādayatītyupapadyate। karnaṇastavanuXaṇavināśinaḥ kālāntarabhāvi phalaṃ bhavatītyanupapannam। ābhāvādbhāvānutpatteḥ। syādetat karmavinaśyatsvakālameva svānurūpaṃ phalaṃ janayitvā vinaśyati tatphalaṃ kālantarītaṃ kartrā bhokṣayat iti। tadapi na pariśudhyati prāgbhotlṛsaṃbandhātphalatvānupapatteḥ। yat kālaṃ hi yatsukhaṃ duḥkhaṃ vātmanā bhujyate tasyaiva loke phalatvaṃ prasiddham। nahyasaṃbandhasyātmanā sukhasya duḥkhasya va phalatvaṃ pratiyanti laukikāḥ। athocyeta mā bhūtkarmānantaraṃ phalotpādaḥ। karmakāryādapūrvātphalamutpatsyat iti। tadapi nopapadyate। apūrvasyācetansya kāṣṭhaloṣṭhasamasya cetanenāpravartitasya pravṛttyanupapatteḥ। tadastittve ca pramāṇābhāvāt। arthāpattiḥ pramāṇamiti cet। na। īśvarasiddherarthāpattikṣayāt॥	Of that Brahman itself another charecteristic is being described that is in evidence during phenomenal existence in which occurs a division between the ordainer and the ordianed. Doubt: With regard to the well-known results of actions of creatures which fall under three classes - the desirable, the undesirable and the mixed – and belong to the state of transmigration, the thought arises as to whether they spring from the karmas (rites etc.) or from God. Vedantin: While in this perdicament, the reasonable position is that “the fruit (of action)” should be “from this one”, from God. Why? “This beig the logical position.” Since he presides over everything, and since he is fully aware of the specific environment and time conducive to different kinds of creation, preservation and dissolution, it is but logically that He should ordan the fruits of works for the people according to their merit. But it does not stand to reason that fruits can come at some future time from actions which get destroyed the next moment; because something cannot come out of nothing. Opponent: It may well be that an action, even while being destroyed produces a result proper to itself, during the time that it lasts, and then only it is destroyed; and that result is attained by the agent of the act at some distant time. Vedantin: That too does not remove te difficulty; for there can be no such thing as a result till the agent of the act comes to possess it, in as much as any happiness or sorrow experienced by any soul at any time is recognized in the world to be such a result relatively to that very time. And common people do not recognize any happiness or sorrow or unrelated to a soul to be a result. Again, if it be maintained that though the result may not issue just after the action, it can issue (in the future) out of the unseen potency emerging out of the act, that too is unjustifiable, for potency,, which is inert like stocks and stones, cannot act unless stimulated by some conscious agent. Besides such an unseen potency lacks any valid proofs. Opponent: Presumption from the seen result (arthapatti) is a proof in its support. Vedantin: No. For God having been proved to be the ordainer of results, any presumption is ruled out of court. -translation by Swami Ghambirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (3.2.38)

Even श्री रामाणुजाचार्य (śrī rāmāṇujācārya) advocating the विशिष्टद्वित दर्शन (viśiṣṭadvita darśana – qualified nondualstic philosophy) also reiterates this philosophy in श्री भाष्यम् (śrī bhāṣyam) which is his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above सूत्र (sūtra - aphorism)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
उक्तमुपासिसिषोपजननार्थ जीवस्य सर्वावस्थासु सदोषत्वं, प्राप्यस्य च परमपुरुषस्य निर्दोषत्वं, कल्याणगुणाकरत्वं, सर्वस्मात्परत्वञ्च; अतः परमुपासनं विवक्षन्नुपासीनानां परस्मादेवास्मात्पुरुषात्तत्माप्तिरूपमपवर्गाख्यं फलमिति सम्पति ब्रूते । तुल्यन्यायतया शास्त्रीयमैहिकामुष्मिकमपि फलम् अत एव परस्मात्पुरुषाद्भवतीति सामान्येन ‘फलमतः' इत्युच्यते। कुत एतत्? उपपत्तेः स एव हि सर्वज्ञस्सर्वशक्तिमहोदारो यागदा. नहोमादिभिरुपासनेन चाराधित ऐहिकामुष्मिकभोगजातं स्वस्वरूपावाप्तिरूपमपवर्ग च दातुमीष्टे नह्यचेतनं कर्म क्षणध्वंसि कालान्तरभाविफलसाधनं भवितुमर्हति ॥	uktamupāsisiṣōpajananārtha jīvasya sarvāvasthāsu sadōṣatvaṁ, prāpyasya ca paramapuruṣasya nirdōṣatvaṁ, kalyāṇaguṇākaratvaṁ, sarvasmātparatvañca; ataḥ paramupāsanaṁ vivakṣannupāsīnānāṁ parasmādēvāsmātpuruṣāttatmāptirūpamapavargākhyaṁ phalamiti sampati brūtē । tulyanyāyatayā śāstrīyamaihikāmuṣmikamapi phalam ata ēva parasmātpuruṣādbhavatīti sāmānyēna ‘phalamataḥ' ityucyatē। kuta ētat? upapattēḥ sa ēva hi sarvajñassarvaśaktimahōdārō yāgadā. nahōmādibhirupāsanēna cārādhita aihikāmuṣmikabhōgajātaṁ svasvarūpāvāptirūpamapavarga ca dātumīṣṭē nahyacētanaṁ karma kṣaṇadhvaṁsi kālāntarabhāviphalasādhanaṁ bhavitumarhati ॥	It has been shown, for the purpose of giving rise to a desire for devout meditation, that the soul in all its states is imperfect, while the Supreme Person to be reached by it is free from imperfections, the owner of blessed qualities and higher than everything else. Being about to investigate the nature of meditation, the Sutrakara now declares that the meditating devotee receives the reward of meditation, i.e. Release, which consists in attaining to the highest Person, from that highest Person only: and that analogously the rewards for all works prescribed by the Veda—whether to be enjoyed in this or the next world—come from the highest Person only. The Sutra therefore says generally, 'from thence the reward.'—'Why so?'—'Because that only is possible.' For it is he only—the all−knowing, all−powerful, supremely generous one— who being pleased by sacrifices, gifts, offerings, and the like, as well as by pious meditation, is in a position to bestow the different forms of enjoyment in this and the heavenly world, and Release which consists in attaining to a nature like his own. For action which is non− intelligent and transitory is incapable of bringing about a result connected with a future time. -translation by George Thibaut
Sanskrit Reference: श्री भाष्यम् (śrī bhāṣyam) (3.2 37)

Thus, as explained above, this कारणत्व विद्या (kāraṇatva vidyā  - science of causality) is backed by perfect logical reasoning. Of course, logic is not the only justification as the doctrine is testified by the sacred scriptures as well. And in fact महऋषि बादरयण (mahaṛṣi bādarayaṇa) highlights this fact in the very next सूत्र (sūtra - aphorism):   

Original	Transliteration	Translation
श्रुतत्वज्ञच।	śrutatvajñaca|	God is the ordainer of the fruits) for the further reason that the Upanishads say so. -translation by Swami Ghambirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra) (3.2 39)

श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya) in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above सूत्र (sūtra - aphorism) explains thus: 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न केवलम् उपपत्तेरेव ईश्वरं फलहेतुं कल्पयामः किं तर्हि श्रुतत्वादपि ईश्वरमेव फलहेतुं मन्यामहे तथा च श्रुतिर्भवति स वा एष महानज आत्मान्नादो वसुदानः इत्येवंजातीयका।।	na kēvalam upapattērēva īśvaraṁ phalahētuṁ kalpayāmaḥ kiṁ tarhi śrutatvādapi īśvaramēva phalahētuṁ manyāmahē tathā ca śrutirbhavati sa vā ēṣa mahānaja ātmānnādō vasudānaḥ ityēvaṁjātīyakā।।	It is not merely on grounds of reason that we think of God as the ordainer of results. On what more grounds then? We think of God as the ordainer of results, because that is how the Upanishads speak. For instance, there is the text, "That great birthless Self is the bestower of food all round and the giver of wealth," (Br. IV. iv. 24), as also other texts of this class. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (3.2 38)

Interestingly, both श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya) advocating the केवलाद्वैत दर्शन (kevalādvaita darśana – absolute nondualstic philosophy), as well as श्री रामाणुजाचार्य (śrī rāmāṇujācārya) advocating the विशिष्टद्वित दर्शन (viśiṣṭadvita darśana – qualified nondualstic philosophy), in their respective भाष्याणि (bhāṣyāṇi - commentaries) on the above quoted सूत्राणि (sūtrāṇi - aphorisms) substantiate their claim by refering to the following testimonies from the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
स व एष महानज ओत्मान्नादो वस्तुदानो विन्दते वसु य एवं वेद॥	sa va eṣa mahānaja otmānnādo vastudāno vindate vasu ya evaṃ veda॥	That great, birthless Self is the eater of food and the giver of wealth (the fruits of one’s work). He who knows It as such receives wealth (those fruits). -translation by Swami Madvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (4.4.24)

Let us look at what श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya) has to further explain about this in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above quoted श्रुति वाक्य (śruti vākya – revelatory statement)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
स वै एप महान् अज आत्मा अन्नादः सर्वभूतस्थः सर्वान्नानामत्त वसुदानः - वसु धनं सर्वप्राणिकर्मफलम् तस्य दाता प्राणिनाम् यथाकर्म फलेन योजयितेत्यर्थः तमेतमज्जमन्नादं वसुदानमात्मानमन्नदवसुदानगुणाभ्यां युक्तं यो वेद सर्वभूतेष्वात्मभूतः - अन्नमित्ति विन्दते स वसु सर्व कर्म फलजातं लभते सर्वात्मत्वादेव ये एवं यथोक्तं वेद। अथ्वा दृष्टफलार्थिभिरपेवं गुण उपास्यः तेन अन्नादो वप्तोश्च लब्धा दृष्टेनैव फलेन अन्नातृत्वेन गोऽश्र्वादिना चास्य योगो भवतीर्त्यर्थः॥	sa vai epa mahān aja ātmā annādaḥ sarvabhūtasthaḥ sarvānnānāmatta vasudānaḥ - vasu dhanaṃ sarvaprāṇikarmaphalam tasya dātā prāṇinām yathākarma phalena yojayitetyarthaḥ tametamajjamannādaṃ vasudānamātmānamannadavasudānaguṇābhyāṃ yuktaṃ yo veda sarvabhūteṣvātmabhūtaḥ - annamitti vindate sa vasu sarva karma phalajātaṃ labhate sarvātmatvādeva ye evaṃ yathoktaṃ veda। athvā dṛṣṭaphalārthibhirapevaṃ guṇa upāsyaḥ tena annādo vaptośca labdhā dṛṣṭenaiva phalena annātṛtvena go'śrvādinā cāsya yogo bhavatīrtyarthaḥ॥	That great, birthless Self which has been expended in the story of Janaka and Yajnavalkya, is the eater of all food, by living in all beings, and the giver of all wealth, i.e. the fruits of the actions of all, in other words, he connects all beings with the results of their respective actions. He who knows It, this birthless Self of all beings, and recieves wealth, and the entire fruits of everybody’s actions, being their very Self. Or the meaning may be, the Self is to be meditated upon as endowed with these attributes even by a man who wants visible results. By that meditation he becomes eater of food and the reciever of wealth; that is to say, he is thereby connected with visible results – with power to eat (plent of) food and with cows, horses etc. -translation by Swami Madvananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.4.24)

Please remember that at the same time, we also know that விதியை மதியால் வெள்ளலாம் (vitiyai matiyāl veḷḷalām – fate can be conquered by wisdom / enlightenment). In fact, all the testimonies from the above quoted scriptural sources also establish the same truth. Now, here lies one of the greatest paradoxes in the domain of philosophy viz. Which of these conflicting statements is correct.     

Well, in response to this question, I would like to reproduce here the detailed explanation given by Sri Aurobindho. I request you to fully concentrate on understanding this, as I feel it is one of the highest of metaphysical concept that we need to digest:

 

“Complete self-identification with the Eternal, such as we find in the Jivanmukta, is complete mukti; for the Jivanmukta can at will withdraw himself in Samadhi into the being of Sacchidananda, who is actionless and turned away from phenomena; and can at will look again towards phenomena, dealing with them as their Lord who puts them to work without being touched by their stir and motion. For the Jivanmukta laya, absorption into the Unknowable, can be accomplished at his will; but he does not will it. The reason for his not willing this utter departure brings us to the very essence of Mukti. Why do men hanker after complete absorption into the unphenomenal? why do they flee from Karma and dread lest it should interfere with their salvation?

“Because they feel that phenomenal life and works are a bondage and they desire to be free and not bound. This state of mind can only last so long as the seeker is the mumukshu, the self desirous of freedom, but when he is actually mukta, the free self, the terror of Maya and her works cannot abide with him. Mukti, whichwe have to render in English by salvation, means really release. But release from what bondage, salvation from what tyranny? From the bondage of Maya, from the tyranny of Avidyā which will have us believe that we are finite, mortal and bound, who are not finite, but infinite, not mortal, but deathless & immutable, not bound, but always free. The moment you have realised that Avidyā is illusion and there is nothing but the Eternal, and never was anything but the Eternal and never will be anything but the Eternal, the moment you have not merely intellectually grasped the idea but come to have habitual experience of the fact, from that moment you will know that you are not bound, never were bound and never will be bound. Avidyā consists precisely in this that the Jivatman thinks there is something else than the Eternal which can throw him into bondage and that he himself is something else than the Eternal and can be bound. When the Jivatman shakes off these illusory impressions of Avidyā, he realises that there is nothing but Brahman the Eternal who is in His very nature nityamukta, from ever and forever free. He can therefore have no fear of Karma nor shrink from it lest it should bind him, for he knows that the feeling of bondage is itself an illusion. He will be ready not only to do his deeds in this world and live out his hundred years, but to be reborn as Sri Krishna himself has promised to be reborn again and again and as other avatars have promised to be reborn. For however often he may enter into phenomenal life, he has no farther terror of Maya and Her bondage. Once free, always free.

“Even if he does not will to be reborn, he will be careful not to leave the world of phenomena until his prarabdha karma is worked out. There are certain debts standing against his name in the ledger of Nature and these he will first absolve. Of course the Jivanmukta is not legally bound by his debts to Nature, for all the promissory notes he has executed in her name have been burned up in the fire of Mukti. He is now free and lord, the master of Prakriti, not its slave. But the Prakriti attached to this Jivatman has created, while in the illusion of bondage, cause which must be allowed to work out their effects; otherwise the chain of causation is snapped and a disturbance is brought about in the economy of Nature. In order therefore to maintain the law of the world unimpaired, the Jivanmukta remains amid works like a prisoner on parole, not bound by the fetters of Prakriti, but detained by his own will until the time appointed for his captivity shall have elapsed”.

Moreover, such saints also have a moral responsibility of continuing their services on this physical world for the welfare of the entire society in accordance with the ब्रह्म संकल्प (brahma saṁkalpa - Divine Will) as declared by the Holy Qurān,

Original	Transliteration	Translation
َٱبۡتَغِ فِيمَآ ءَاتَىٰكَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلدَّارَ ٱلۡأٓخِرَةَۖ وَلَا تَنسَ نَصِيبَكَ مِنَ ٱلدُّنۡيَاۖ وَأَحۡسِن كَمَآ أَحۡسَنَ ٱللَّهُ إِلَيۡكَۖ وَلَا تَبۡغِ ٱلۡفَسَادَ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُفۡسِدِينَ	Wabtaghi feemaaa aataakal laahud Daaral Aakhirata wa laa tansa naseebaka minad dunyaa wa ahsin kamaaa ahsanal laahu ilaika wa laa tabghil fasaada fil ardi innal laaha laa yuhibbul mufsideen	But seek, through that which Allah has given you, the home of the Hereafter; and [yet], do not forget your share of the world. And do good as Allah has done good to you. And desire not corruption in the land. Indeed, Allah does not like corrupters. -translation by Sahih International
Arabic Reference 1: Holy Quran (28:77)

    But on the face of it, this may seem to be very ironic, as we know that स्थूल देह (sthūla deha – gross body) is a by product of अशुद्ध माया /अविद्या  (aśuddha māyā / avidyā – nescience / impure delusion) obtained based on one’s कर्मफल (karma phala – fatal fruits). Yes, in fact, the whole purpose of taking birth as a जीवात्मन् (jīvātman – corporeals soul)in this भूलोक (bhūloka – terrestrial world), which is technically considered as the कर्मभूमि (karmabhūmi – place / land of activity), is for relinquishing from स्वस्य मलाः (svasya malāḥ - one’s own fetters). The revered preceptor श्री वात्स्यायन (śrī vātsyāyana) in his न्याय भाष्य (nyāya bhāṣya) very categorically states पूर्व कृत फलानुबन्धात् (pūrva kṛta  phalānubandhāt – body is the result of experiencing fruits of past actions).

    To this end, the स्थूल देह (sthūla deha – gross body) serves as an important instrument as explained by ஸ்ரீஅருள் நந்தி சிவாச்சாரியார் (srī'aruḷ nanti civāccāriyār) in the following verses from his famous work சிவஞான சித்த்யார் சுபக்கம் (civañāṉa cittyār cupakkam)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
இருவினை இன்பத் துன்பத் திவ்வுயிர் பிறந்தி றந்து வருவது போவ தாகும் மன்னிய வினைப்ப லன்கள் தருமரன் தரணி யோடு தராபதி போலத் தாமே மருவிடா வடிவுங் கன்ம பலன்களும் மறுமைக் கண்ணே. உடற்செயல் கன்மம் இந்த உடல்வந்த வாறே தென்னின் விடப்படு முன்னு டம்பின் வினைஇந்த உடல்வி ளைக்கும் தொடர்ச்சியால் ஒன்றுக் கொன்று தொன்றுதொட் டநாதி வித்தின் இடத்தினின் மரம்ம ரத்தின் வித்தும்வந் தியையு மாபோல். முற்செயல் விதியை இந்த முயற்சியோ டனுப வித்தான் இச்செயல் பலிக்கு மாறென் இதமகி தங்கள் முன்னர் அச்செய லானால் இங்கும் அவைசெயின் மேலைக் காகும் பிற்செயா தனுப விப்ப தின்றுபின் தொடருஞ் செய்தி.	iruviṉai iṉpat tuṉpat tivvuyir piṟanti ṟantu varuvatu pōva tākum maṉṉiya viṉaippa laṉkaḷ tarumaraṉ taraṇi yōṭu tarāpati pōlat tāmē maruviṭā vaṭivuṅ kaṉma palaṉkaḷum maṟumaik kaṇṇē. uṭaṟceyal kaṉmam inta uṭalvanta vāṟē teṉṉiṉ viṭappaṭu muṉṉu ṭampiṉ viṉai'inta uṭalvi ḷaikkum toṭarcciyāl oṉṟuk koṉṟu toṉṟutoṭ ṭanāti vittiṉ iṭattiṉiṉ maram'ma rattiṉ vittumvan tiyaiyu māpōl. muṟceyal vitiyai inta muyaṟciyō ṭaṉupa vittāṉ icceyal palikku māṟeṉ itamaki taṅkaḷ muṉṉar acceya lāṉāl iṅkum avaiceyiṉ mēlaik kākum piṟceyā taṉupa vippa tiṉṟupiṉ toṭaruñ ceyti.	This Soul, subject to good and bad Karma endures birth and death, and pleasure and pain. The soul enjoys the fruits of Karma through the Power of God, in the same way, as a King metes out reward and punishment in this mundane world. The fruits cannot attach to a future birth by the appropriate bodies etc, of their own force. Karma being acts of the body, how was the body caused you ask. The karma of the last body causes the new body. They are mutually connected as cause and effect, as the seed and tree mutually cause each other If past Karma is eaten in this birth, how do you get seed for a future birth you ask. This Karma consists of acts producing pleasure or pain. These acts caused the present body and in performing them again, other acts are formed. It is impossible to act without giving rise to other acts. Hence the connection. -translation by Nallaswamy Pillai
Tamil Reference: சிவஞான சித்த்யார் சுபக்கம் (civañāṉa cittyār cupakkam) (94, 100- 101)

Thus, as testified in the above verses, the purpose of terrestrial life with a स्थूल भूत देह (sthūla bhūta śarīra – gross physical body) is only to experience the प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced/ripened fate) which, as we already observed, is nothing but one’s own परीत कर्माणाम् फलानि (parīta karmāṇām phalāni – fruits of past acts). However, this being said, in the case of a मूक्तात्म (mūktātma – liberated soul), may no longer need a स्थूल देह (sthūla deha – gross body) after his विज्ञन (vijñana-  enlightenment), since he, by his समयक्सम्बोध (samayaksambodha - complete enlightenment), is supposed to have already conquered all his karmic conditionings. In other words, he has to have completely exhausted his सञ्चित कर्म (sañcita karma – accumulated total fate),

However, in some cases, it may seem as though, even after a मूक्तात्म (mūktātma – liberated soul) attains समयक्सम्बोध (samayaksambodha - complete enlightenment) in this life itself, yet a अल्प शेष (alpa śeṣa – small residue) from his प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced fate) would still remain to be exhausted in this life itself, and hence the saint continues to retain his physical body untill the same is also completely exhausted.

There are ample case studies (of saint’s lives) spread across the pages of world history testifying this point. Take the life stories of some of the noblest जीवन् मुक्ताः (jīvan muktāḥ – living liberates) that ever walked on earth including Bhagavan Sri RamaKrishna Paramahamsa, Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi etc., These noblest of noble saints are known to have suffered from serious health troubles (diseases) inspite of having attained highest states of ब्रह्मज्ञान अनुभूति (brahmajñāna anubhūti – spiritual wisdom experience).

One might naturally wonder, why such greatest of saints who are known to have miraculously healed and cured several devotees suffereing from different medical problems, are themselves victims of such sufferings. Moreover, we have all learnt that according to the कर्म विधि (karma vidhi - law of karma), one’s suffering because of his own past follies or sins. Current suffering is a result of a past cause (action) viz. प्रारब्ध कर्म (prārabdha karma – commenced fate). This being the case, does that mean these saints were also sinners in the past and as a result of which they are undergoing the suffering in this life?  In that case, are they not still bound or locked by their own fate. How do we call them a मुक्तात्मन् (mūktātman – liberated soul) then?

Well, such skeptical questions do seem quit vaild superficially. But deeper analyisis would reveal that the sufferings of these noble saints was not always due to their own शिष्ट प्रारब्ध कर्म (śiṣṭa prārabdha karma – residual portions of commenced fate) but because the out of their supreme compassion and mercy, they absorbed (took over) some of the कर्म फलानि (karma phalāni – fruits of fate) especially the पापानि (pāpāni - sins) of others even to the extent of bearing physical suffering on their behalf. This fact is testified by in the own words of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who was suffering from throat cancer in his life. According to him,

“Perhaps there is a meaning in what has happened to my throat [referring to his throat cancer]… I have been suffering for all of you. I have taken upon myself the miseries of the whole world… The Divine Mother has shown me that people are getting rid of their sins by touching my feet. I am absorbing the results of their sinful actions, so I am suffering from this terrible cancer”

Many of the these जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberates) also elongate their terrestrial life in order to continue their important mission of serving as परमाचार्य / परमागुरु (paramācārya / paramāguru – supreme master / preceptor), or, in other words, these saints retain their bodily presence in the physical world inorder to fulfill the role as a Divine Messiah – passing the sacred Word of God to the rest of humanity.  

However, will not such absorption of other’s sins/problems and thereby  extention of physical life even after liberation, could also end up being potentially counter productive? Besides, any of the क्रियमाण कर्म (kriyamāṇa karma – current actions) performed post liberation, might again bind the saint to its corresponding आगमि कर्म (āgami karma – potential consequences/fate) which would get added back to his otherwise exhausted सञ्चित कर्म (sañcita karma – accumulated total fate) and according to the सार्वजन्य कर्मविधि (sārvajanya karmavidhi - universal law of karma), such कर्म शेष (karma śeṣa –  karmic residue) (however small it may be) inturn would eventually force him a subsequent पुनर्जन्म (punarjanma - rebirth) and thereby the viscious cycle of संसरण (saṁsaraṇa – transmigratory life) may continue. In other words, based on the above logic, it appears as though a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate) continuing his bodily existence post enlightenment does not seem to be favourable to his final emancipation. It actually appears potentially determental to the same as he runs the risk of being pulled back into the viscious cycle. This being the case, why is he continuing his mortal existence? Isn’t it possible for him to avoid such a situation? If not then doesn’t it mean he is not actually a liberated soul as he still bound by his own bodily risks. 

    Well, while on the face of it, the very concept of मुक्ति (mukti - liberation) seems to be defeated in the case of सदेह / जीवन् मुक्ति (sadeha / jīvan  mukti – ante mortem/ embodied  liberation). However, closer scruitiny will help us understand that, it is not so in reality. Please remember every rule has its set of honourable exceptions. In other words, the सार्वजन्य कर्मविधि (sārvajanya karmavidhi - universal law of karma) discussed above is applicable only in the case of काम्य कर्म (kāmya karma – desire driven actions) performed by सामान्य आत्मन् (sāmānya ātman – mundane soul) but not in the case of a जीवन्मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate) who has attained what is referred by भगवान् श्री कृष्णपरमात्म (bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇaparamātma) in the श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता (śrīmadbhagavadgītā) as स्थितप्रज्ञ (sthitaprajña – firm / absolute wisdom). In response to a question by his friend-devotee Arjuna, the beloved Lord gives a very detailed account of the principal charecteristics of a saint with स्थितप्रज्ञ (sthitaprajña – firm / absolute wisdom).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
श्री भगवान् उवाच प्रजाहति यदा कामान् सर्वान् पार्थ मनोगतान्। आत्मन्येव आत्माना तुष्टः स्थितप्रज्ञास् तदोच्यते॥ दुखेष्वनुद्विग्नमनाः सुकेषु विगतसुपृहः। वितरागभयक्रोधः स्थितदीर्मुनिरुच्यते॥ यः सर्वत्रानभिस्नेहस्तत्तत्प्राप्य शुभाशुभम्। नभिनन्दति ना द्वेष्टि तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्टता॥ यदा संहरते चायं कूर्मोऽङ्गानीव सर्वशः। इन्द्रियाणीन्दिर्यार्येभ्यस्तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्टता॥	śrī bhagavān uvāca prajāhati yadā kāmān sarvān pārtha manogatān| ātmanyeva ātmānā tuṣṭa dukheṣvanudvignamanāḥ sukeṣu vigatasupṛhaḥ| vitarāgabhayakrodhaḥ sthitadīrmunirucyate|| yaḥ sarvatrānabhisnehastattatprāpya śubhāśubham| nabhinandati nā dveṣṭi tasya prajñā pratiṣṭatā|| yadā saṁharate cāyaṁ kūrmo'ṅgānīva sarvaśaḥ| indriyāṇīndiryāryebhyastasya prajñā pratiṣṭatā||	The Blessed said, O Partha, when one fully renounces all the desires that have entered the mind, and remains satisfied in the Self alone by the Self, then he is called a man of steady wisdom. That monk is called a man of steady wisdom when his mind is unperturbed in sorrow, he is free from longing for delights, and has gone beyond attachment, fear and anger. The wisdom of that person remains established who has not attachment for anything anywhere, who neither welcomes nor rejects anything whatever good or bad when he comes across it. And when this one fully withdraws the senses from the objects of the senses, as a tortoise wholly (withdraws) the limbs, then his wisdom remains established. -Translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:: श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.55-58)

Let us look at what श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya) has to further explain about this in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above quoted श्लोकाः (ślokāḥ - verses)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
प्रजहाति प्रकर्षेण जहाति परित्यजति यदा यस्मिन्काले सर्वान् समस्तान् कामान् इच्छाभेदान् हे पार्थ मनोगतान् मनसि प्रविष्टान् हृदि प्रविष्टान्। सर्वकामपरित्यागे तुष्टिकारणाभावात् शरीरधारणनिमित्तशेषे च सति उन्मत्तप्रमत्तस्येव प्रवृत्तिः प्राप्ता इत्यत उच्यते आत्मन्येव प्रत्यगात्मस्वरूपे एव आत्मना स्वेनैव बाह्यलाभनिरपेक्षः तुष्टः परमार्थदर्शनामृतरसलाभेन अन्यस्मादलंप्रत्ययवान् स्थितप्रज्ञः स्थिता प्रतिष्ठिता आत्मानात्मविवेकजा प्रज्ञा यस्य सः स्थितप्रज्ञः विद्वान् तदा उच्यते। त्यक्तपुत्रवित्तलोकैषणः संन्यासी आत्माराम आत्मक्रीडः स्थितप्रज्ञ इत्यर्थः।। किञ्च दुःखेषु आध्यात्मिकादिषु प्राप्तेषु न उद्विग्नं न प्रक्षुभितं दुःखप्राप्तौ मनो यस्य सोऽयम् अनुद्विग्नमनाः। तथा सुखेषु प्राप्तेषु विगता स्पृहा तृष्णा यस्य न अग्निरिव इन्धनाद्याधाने सुखान्यनु विवर्धते स विगतस्पृहः। वीतरागभयक्रोधः रागश्च भयं च क्रोधश्च वीता विगता यस्मात् स वीतरागभयक्रोधः। स्थितधीः स्थितप्रज्ञो मुनिः संन्यासी तदा उच्यते।। किञ्च यः मुनिः सर्वत्र देहजीवितादिष्वपि अनभिस्नेहः अभिस्नेहवर्जितः तत्तत् प्राप्य शुभाशुभं तत्तत् शुभं अशुभं वा लब्ध्वा न अभिनन्दति न द्वेष्टि शुभं प्राप्य न तुष्यति न हृष्यति अशुभं च प्राप्य न द्वेष्टि इत्यर्थः। तस्य एवं हर्षविषादवर्जितस्य विवेकजा प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता भवति।। किञ्च यदा संहरते सम्यगुपसंहरते च अयं ज्ञाननिष्ठायां प्रवृत्तो यतिः कूर्मः अङ्गानि इव यथा कूर्मः भयात् स्वान्यङ्गानि उपसंहरति सर्वशः सर्वतः एवं ज्ञाननिष्ठः इन्द्रियाणि इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः सर्वविषयेभ्यः उपसंहरते। तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता इत्युक्तार्थं वाक्यम्।। तत्र विषयाननाहरतः आतुरस्यापि इन्द्रियाणि कूर्माङ्गानीव संह्रियन्ते न तु तद्विषयो रागः स कथं संह्रियते इति उच्यते	prajahāti prakarṣēṇa jahāti parityajati yadā yasminkālē sarvān samastān kāmān icchābhēdān hē pārtha manōgatān manasi praviṣṭān hr̥di praviṣṭān। sarvakāmaparityāgē tuṣṭikāraṇābhāvāt śarīradhāraṇanimittaśēṣē ca sati unmattapramattasyēva pravr̥ttiḥ prāptā ityata ucyatē ātmanyēva pratyagātmasvarūpē ēva ātmanā svēnaiva bāhyalābhanirapēkṣaḥ tuṣṭaḥ paramārthadarśanāmr̥tarasalābhēna anyasmādalaṁpratyayavān sthitaprajñaḥ sthitā pratiṣṭhitā ātmānātmavivēkajā prajñā yasya saḥ sthitaprajñaḥ vidvān tadā ucyatē। tyaktaputravittalōkaiṣaṇaḥ saṁnyāsī ātmārāma ātmakrīḍaḥ sthitaprajña ityarthaḥ।। kiñca duḥkhēṣu ādhyātmikādiṣu prāptēṣu na udvignaṁ na prakṣubhitaṁ duḥkhaprāptau manō yasya sō'yam anudvignamanāḥ। tathā sukhēṣu prāptēṣu vigatā spr̥hā tr̥ṣṇā yasya na agniriva indhanādyādhānē sukhānyanu vivardhatē sa vigataspr̥haḥ। vītarāgabhayakrōdhaḥ rāgaśca bhayaṁ ca krōdhaśca vītā vigatā yasmāt sa vītarāgabhayakrōdhaḥ। sthitadhīḥ sthitaprajñō muniḥ saṁnyāsī tadā ucyatē।। kiñca yaḥ muniḥ sarvatra dēhajīvitādiṣvapi anabhisnēhaḥ abhisnēhavarjitaḥ tattat prāpya śubhāśubhaṁ tattat śubhaṁ aśubhaṁ vā labdhvā na abhinandati na dvēṣṭi śubhaṁ prāpya na tuṣyati na hr̥ṣyati aśubhaṁ ca prāpya na dvēṣṭi ityarthaḥ। tasya ēvaṁ harṣaviṣādavarjitasya vivēkajā prajñā pratiṣṭhitā bhavati।। kiñca yadā saṁharatē samyagupasaṁharatē ca ayaṁ jñānaniṣṭhāyāṁ pravr̥ttō yatiḥ kūrmaḥ aṅgāni iva yathā kūrmaḥ bhayāt svānyaṅgāni upasaṁharati sarvaśaḥ sarvataḥ ēvaṁ jñānaniṣṭhaḥ indriyāṇi indriyārthēbhyaḥ sarvaviṣayēbhyaḥ upasaṁharatē। tasya prajñā pratiṣṭhitā ityuktārthaṁ vākyam।। tatra viṣayānanāharataḥ āturasyāpi indriyāṇi kūrmāṅgānīva saṁhriyantē na tu tadviṣayō rāgaḥ sa kathaṁ saṁhriyatē iti ucyatē	In the verses beginning from, ‘When one fully renounces...’, and ending with the completion of the Chapter, instruction about the characteristics of the man of steady wisdom and the disciplines (he had to pass through) is being given both for the one who has, indeed, applied himself to steadfastness in the Yoga of Knowledge after having renounced rites and duties from the very beginning, and for the one who has (applied himself to this after having passed) through the path of Karma-Yoga. For in all the scriptures without exception, dealing, with spirituality, whatever are the characteristics of the man of realization are themselves presented as the disciplines for an aspirant, because these (characteristics) are the result of effort. And those that are the disciplines requiring effort, they become the characteristics (of the man of realization). O Pārtha, yadā, when, at the time when; prajahāti, one fully renounces; sarvān, all; the kāmān, desires, varieties of desires; manogatān, that have entered the mind, entered into the heart. If all desires are renounced while the need for maintaining the body persists, then, in the absence of anything to bring satisfaction, there may arise the possibility of one’s behaving like lunatics or drunkards. Hence it is said: Tusṭah, remains satisfied; ātmani eva, in the Self alone, in the very nature of the inmost Self; ātmanā, by the Self which is his own—indifferent to external gains, and satiated with everything else on account of having attained the nectar of realization of the supreme Goal; tadā, then; ucyate, he is called; sthita-prajñah, a man of steady wisdom, a man of realization, one whose wisdom, arising from the discrimination between the Self and the not-Self, is stable. The idea is that the man of steady wisdom is a monk, who has renounced the desire for progeny, wealth and the worlds, and who delights in the Self and disports in the Self. Moreover, that munih, monk; ucyate, is then called; sthitadhīh, a man of steady wisdom; when anudvignamanāh, his mind is unperturbed; duhkhesu, in sorrow—when his mind remains unperturbed by the sorrows that may come on the physical or other planes —; so also, when he is vigata-sprhah, free from longing; sukhesu, for delights—when he, unlike fire which flares up when fed with fuel etc., has no longing for delights when they come to him—; and vīta-rāga-bhaya-krodhah, has gone beyond attachment, fear, and anger. Further, prajñā, the wisdom; tasya, of that person, of that sannyāsin; pratisṭhitā, remains established; yah, who; anabhisnehah, has no attachment for; sarvatra, anything anywhere, even for body, life, etc.; who na abhinandati, neither welcomes; na dvesṭi, nor rejects; tat tat, anything whatever; śubha-aśubham, good or bad; prāpya, when he comes across it, that is, who does not rejoice on meeting with the good, nor reject the bad on meeting with it. Of such a person, who is thus free from elation or dejection, the wisdom arising from discrimination remains established. And besides, yadā, when; ayam, this one, the sannyāsin practising steadfastness in Knowledge; saṁharate, fully withdraws;indriyāni, the senses; indriya-arthebhyah, from all the objects of the senses; iva, as; kūrmah, a tortoise; sarvaśah, wholly (withdraws); angāni, its limbs, from all sides out of fear;—when the man engaged in steadfastness to Knowledge withdraws thus, then tasya, his; prajñā, wisdom; pratisṭhitā, remains established—(the meaning of this portion has already been explained). As to that, the organs of a sick person, too, cease to be active when he refrains from sense-objects; they get fully withdrawn like the limbs of a tortoise, but not so the hankering for those objects. How that (hankering) gets completely withdrawn is being stated: -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference:: श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (2.55-58)

Next, let us look at what श्री रामाणुजाचार्य (śrī rāmāṇujācārya) has to further explain about this in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above quoted श्लोकाः (ślokāḥ - verses)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
श्री भगवानुवाच आत्मनि एव आत्मना मनसा आत्मैकावलम्बनेन तुष्टः तेन तोषेण तद्व्यतिरिक्तान् सर्वान् मनोगतान् कामान् यदा प्रकर्षेण जहाति तदा अयं स्थितप्रज्ञ इति उच्यते। ज्ञाननिष्ठाकाष्ठा इयम्। अनन्तरं ज्ञाननिष्ठस्य ततः अर्वाचीना अदूरविप्रकृष्टावस्था उच्यते प्रियविश्लेषादि दुःखनिमित्तेषु उपस्थितेषु अनुद्विग्नमनाः न दुःखी भवति सुखेषु विगतस्पृहः प्रियेषु सन्निहितेषु अपि निःस्पृहः वीतरागभयक्रोधः अनागतेषु स्पृहा रागस्तद्रवितः प्रियविश्लेषाप्रियागमनहेतुदर्शननिमित्तिं दुःखं भयम् तद्रहितः प्रियविश्लेषाप्रियागमनहेतुभूतचेतनान्तरगतो दुःखहेतुः स्वमनोविकारः क्रोधः तद्रहितः एवंभूतो मुनिः आत्ममननशीलः स्थितधीः इति उच्यते। ततः अर्वाचीनदशा प्रोच्यते यः सर्वत्र प्रियेषु अनभिस्नेहः उदासीनः प्रियसंश्लेषविश्लेषरूपं शुभाशुभं प्राप्य अभिनन्दनद्वेषरहितः सोऽपि स्थितप्रज्ञः। ततः अर्वाचीनदशा प्रोच्यते यदा इन्द्रियाणि इन्द्रियार्थान् स्प्रष्टुम् उद्युक्तानि तदा एव कूर्मः अङ्गानि इव इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः सर्वशः प्रतिसंहृत्य मन आत्मनि एव स्थापयति सोऽपि स्थितप्रज्ञः। एवं चतुर्विधा ज्ञाननिष्ठा पूर्वपूर्वोत्तरोत्तरनिष्पाद्या इति प्रतिपादितम्। इदानीं ज्ञाननिष्ठाया दुष्प्रापतां तत्प्राप्त्युपायं च आह	śrī bhagavānuvāca ātmani ēva ātmanā manasā ātmaikāvalambanēna tuṣṭaḥ tēna tōṣēṇa tadvyatiriktān sarvān manōgatān kāmān yadā prakarṣēṇa jahāti tadā ayaṁ sthitaprajña iti ucyatē। jñānaniṣṭhākāṣṭhā iyam। anantaraṁ jñānaniṣṭhasya tataḥ arvācīnā adūraviprakr̥ṣṭāvasthā ucyatē priyaviślēṣādi duḥkhanimittēṣu upasthitēṣu anudvignamanāḥ na duḥkhī bhavati sukhēṣu vigataspr̥haḥ priyēṣu sannihitēṣu api niḥspr̥haḥ vītarāgabhayakrōdhaḥ anāgatēṣu spr̥hā rāgastadravitaḥ priyaviślēṣāpriyāgamanahētudarśananimittiṁ duḥkhaṁ bhayam tadrahitaḥ priyaviślēṣāpriyāgamanahētubhūtacētanāntaragatō duḥkhahētuḥ svamanōvikāraḥ krōdhaḥ tadrahitaḥ ēvaṁbhūtō muniḥ ātmamananaśīlaḥ sthitadhīḥ iti ucyatē। tataḥ arvācīnadaśā prōcyatē yaḥ sarvatra priyēṣu anabhisnēhaḥ udāsīnaḥ priyasaṁślēṣaviślēṣarūpaṁ śubhāśubhaṁ prāpya abhinandanadvēṣarahitaḥ sō'pi sthitaprajñaḥ। tataḥ arvācīnadaśā prōcyatē yadā indriyāṇi indriyārthān spraṣṭum udyuktāni tadā ēva kūrmaḥ aṅgāni iva indriyārthēbhyaḥ sarvaśaḥ pratisaṁhr̥tya mana ātmani ēva sthāpayati sō'pi sthitaprajñaḥ। ēvaṁ caturvidhā jñānaniṣṭhā pūrvapūrvōttarōttaraniṣpādyā iti pratipāditam। idānīṁ jñānaniṣṭhāyā duṣprāpatāṁ tatprāptyupāyaṁ ca āha	The Lord said When a person is satisfied in himself with himself, i.e. when his mind depends on the self within himself; and being content with that, expels all the desires of the mind which are different from that state of mind - then he is said to be a man of firm wisdom. This is the highest form of devotion of knowledge. Then, the lower state, not far below it, of one established in firm wisdom, is described: Even when there are reasons for grief like separation from beloved ones, his mind is not perturbed, i.e., he is not aggrieved. He has no longing to enjoy pleasures, i.e., even though the things which he likes are near him, he has no longing for them. He is free from desire and anger; desire is longing for objects not yet obtained; he is free from this. Fear is affliction produced from the knowledge of the factors which cause separation from the beloved or from meeting with that which is not desirable; he is free from this. Anger is a disturbed state of one's own mind which produces affliction and which is aimed at another sentient being who is the cause of separation from the beloved or of confrontation with what is not desirable. He is free from this. A sage of this sort, who constantly meditates on the self, is said to be of firm wisdom. Then, the next state below this is described: He, who, has no love for all pleasing objects, i.e., who is indifferent to them, and who does not feel attraction or repulsion when he is united with or separated from attractive or repulsive objects respectively, who neither rejoices at the former, nor hates the latter - he also is of firm wisdom. Sri Krsna now mentions the next lower state. When one is able to draw the senses away from the sense-objects on every side when the senses try to contact the sense-objects, just as a tortoise draws in its limbs, and is capable of fixing his mind on the self - he too is of firm wisdom. Thus there are four stages of devotion to knowledge, each stage being perfected through the succeeding stage. Now Sri Krsna speaks of the difficulty of the attainment of firm devotion to knowledge and the means of that attainment. -Translation by Swami Adidevananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता रामाणुजभाष्य (śrīmad bhagavadgītā rāmāṇujabhāṣya) (2.55-58)

    In fact, श्री वेदान्त देशिकाचार्य (śrī vedānta deśikācārya) in his तात्पर्य चन्द्रिका (tātparya candrikā), a famous sub commentary on रामानुज भाष्य (rāmānuja bhāṣya) of the above scripture, these four verses represent the  four-fold states (listed in descending order) of spiritual progress originally referred by महऋषि पतङ्जलि (mahaṛṣi pataṅjali) in the following aphorism on वैराग्य (vairāgya - detachment)  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
दृष्टानुश्रविकविषयवितृषणस्य वशिकारसंज्ञा वैराग्यम्॥	dṛṣṭānuśravikaviṣayavitṛṣaṇasya vaśikārasaṁjñā vairāgyam||	Desirelessness is the consciousness of supremacy in him who is free from thirst for perceptible and scriptural enjoyments.  -Translation by Ramaprasada
Sanskrit Reference: पातञ्जलयोगसूत्र (pātañjalayogasūtra) (1.15)

Let us now look at the famous भाष्य व्यासमहऋषे (bhāṣya vyāsamahaṛṣe – commentary of Vyasa Maharishi) on the above quoted सूत्र (sūtra - aphorism)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
स्त्रियोऽन्नपानमैश्वर्यमिति दृष्टविषये वितृष्णस्य स्वर्गवैदेह्यप्रकृतिलयत्वप्राप्तावानुश्रविकविषये वितृष्णस्य दिव्यादिव्यविषयसंयोगेऽपि चित्तस्य विषयदोषदर्शिनः प्रसंख्यानबलादनाभोगात्मिका हेयोपादेयशून्या वशीकारसंज्ञा वैराग्यम्।	striyō'nnapānamaiśvaryamiti dr̥ṣṭaviṣayē vitr̥ṣṇasya svargavaidēhyaprakr̥tilayatvaprāptāvānuśravikaviṣayē vitr̥ṣṇasya divyādivyaviṣayasaṁyōgē'pi cittasya viṣayadōṣadarśinaḥ prasaṁkhyānabalādanābhōgātmikā hēyōpādēyaśūnyā vaśīkārasaṁjñā vairāgyam।	A mind free from attachment to perceptible enjoyments, such as women, foods, drinks, and power, and having no thirst for scriptural enjoyables, such as heaven and the attainment of the states of the Videha and the Prakr̥tilaya, has, when it comes into contact with such divine and worldly objects, a consciousness of its supremacy, due to an understanding of the defects of the objects, brought about by virtue of intellectual illumination. This consciousness of power is the same as the consciousness of indifference to their enjoyment, and is devoid of all desirable and undesirable objects as such. This mental state is desirelessness (Vairagya). -Translation by Rama Prasaada
Sanskrit Reference: पातञ्जलयोगसूत्र व्यासभाष्य (pātañjalayogasūtra vyāsabhāṣya) (1.15)

According to देशिकाचार्य (deśikācārya),यतमान संञ्जना (yatamāna saṁñjanā – concentartion by withdrawls of senses from external objects), व्यलिरेक संञ्जना (vyalireka saṁñjanā – conscentration by withdrawl of mind from like and dislike), एकेन्द्रिय संञ्जना (ekendriya saṁñjanā – concentration on the one soul) & वैशीकार संञ्जना (vaiśīkāra saṁñjanā – total desireless concentration). These four concentrations are precisely are what the गीताचार्यन् (gītācāryan) advises (in descending order) to Arjuna, as the noble charecteristics of a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – liberated in life) who is supposed to have attained स्थितप्रज्ञ (sthitaprajña – firm / absolute wisdom).

Thus, unlike ordinary mortals, a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – embodied liberate) after attaining समयक्सम्बोध (samayaksambodha - complete enlightenment) performs every action in this terrestrial world with a वैशीकार संञ्जना (vaiśīkāra saṁñjanā – total desireless concentration) and hence is not affected by its कर्म फल (karma phala – fruits of action). This fact is testified by श्री बाद्रायण महऋषि (śrī bādrāyaṇa mahaṛṣi) in the ब्रह्मसूत्र (brahmasūtra)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तधिगम उत्तरपूर्वाघ्योरशलेषविनाशौ तद्व्यपदेशात्॥ इतरस्याप्येवमसंश्लेषः पाते तु॥ अनारब्धकार्ये एव तु पूर्वे तदवधेः।।	tadhigama uttarapūrvāghyōraśalēṣavināśau tadvyapadēśāt॥ itarasyāpyēvamasaṁślēṣaḥ pātē tu॥ anārabdhakāryē ēva tu pūrvē tadavadhēḥ।।	On the realization of That, there occur the non-attachment and destruction of the subsequent and previous sins respectively, because it is declared so. In the very same way there is no attachment of the other (i.e. of virtue) as well. Liberation must follow as soon as the body falls. But only those past (virtues and vices) get destroyed which have not begun to beaT fruit, for death is set as tbe limit of waiting for liberation. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra) (1.13-15)

Let us look at what श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya) has to further explain about this in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above quoted सूत्राणि (sūtrāṇi - aphorisms), in particular the last one:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
पूर्वयोरधिकरणयोर्ज्ञाननिमित्तः सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्विनाशोऽवधारितः स किमविशेषेण आरब्धकार्ययोरनारब्धकार्ययोश्च भवति उत विशेषेणानारब्धकार्ययोरेवेति विचार्यते। तत्र उभे उ हैवैष एते तरति इत्येवमादिश्रुतिष्वविशेषश्रवणादविशेषेणैव क्षय इत्येवं प्राप्ते प्रत्याह अनारब्धकार्ये एव त्विति। अप्रवृत्तफले एव पूर्वे जन्मान्तरसंचिते अस्मिन्नपि च जन्मनि प्राग्ज्ञानोत्पत्तेः संचिते सुकृतदुष्कृते ज्ञानाधिगमात् क्षीयेते न तु आरब्धकार्ये सामिभुक्तफले याभ्यामेतत् ब्रह्मज्ञानायतनं जन्म निर्मितम्। कुत एतत् तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ संपत्स्ये इति शरीरपातावधिकरणात्क्षेमप्राप्तेः इतरथा हि ज्ञानादशेषकर्मक्षये सति स्थितिहेत्वभावात् ज्ञानप्राप्त्यनन्तरमेव क्षेममश्नुवीत तत्र शरीरपातप्रतीक्षां न आचक्षीत। ननु वस्तुबलेनैव अयमकर्त्रात्मावबोधः कर्माणि क्षपयन् कथं कानिचित्क्षपयेत् कानिचिच्चोपेक्षेत न हि समानेऽग्निबीजसंपर्के केषांचिद्बीजशक्तिः क्षीयते केषांचिन्न क्षीयते इति शक्यमङ्गीकर्तुमिति उच्यते न तावदनाश्रित्य आरब्धकार्यं कर्माशयं ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते आश्रिते च तस्मिन्कुलालचक्रवत्प्रवृत्तवेगस्य अन्तराले प्रतिबन्धासंभवात् भवति वेगक्षयप्रतिपालनम्। अकर्त्रात्मबोधोऽपि हि मिथ्याज्ञानबाधनेन कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्संस्कारवशात्कंचित्कालमनुवर्तत एव। अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् ब्रह्मविदा कंचित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत श्रुतिस्मृतिषु च स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेन एतदेव निरुच्यते। तस्मादनारब्धकार्ययोरेव सुकृतदुष्कृतयोर्विद्यासामर्थ्यात्क्षय इति निर्णयः।।	pūrvayōradhikaraṇayōrjñānanimittaḥ sukr̥taduṣkr̥tayōrvināśō'vadhāritaḥ sa kimaviśēṣēṇa ārabdhakāryayōranārabdhakāryayōśca bhavati uta viśēṣēṇānārabdhakāryayōrēvēti vicāryatē। tatra ubhē u haivaiṣa ētē tarati ityēvamādiśrutiṣvaviśēṣaśravaṇādaviśēṣēṇaiva kṣaya ityēvaṁ prāptē pratyāha anārabdhakāryē ēva tviti। apravr̥ttaphalē ēva pūrvē janmāntarasaṁcitē asminnapi ca janmani prāgjñānōtpattēḥ saṁcitē sukr̥taduṣkr̥tē jñānādhigamāt kṣīyētē na tu ārabdhakāryē sāmibhuktaphalē yābhyāmētat brahmajñānāyatanaṁ janma nirmitam। kuta ētat tasya tāvadēva ciraṁ yāvanna vimōkṣyē'tha saṁpatsyē iti śarīrapātāvadhikaraṇātkṣēmaprāptēḥ itarathā hi jñānādaśēṣakarmakṣayē sati sthitihētvabhāvāt jñānaprāptyanantaramēva kṣēmamaśnuvīta tatra śarīrapātapratīkṣāṁ na ācakṣīta। nanu vastubalēnaiva ayamakartrātmāvabōdhaḥ karmāṇi kṣapayan kathaṁ kānicitkṣapayēt kāniciccōpēkṣēta na hi samānē'gnibījasaṁparkē kēṣāṁcidbījaśaktiḥ kṣīyatē kēṣāṁcinna kṣīyatē iti śakyamaṅgīkartumiti ucyatē na tāvadanāśritya ārabdhakāryaṁ karmāśayaṁ jñānōtpattirupapadyatē āśritē ca tasminkulālacakravatpravr̥ttavēgasya antarālē pratibandhāsaṁbhavāt bhavati vēgakṣayapratipālanam। akartrātmabōdhō'pi hi mithyājñānabādhanēna karmāṇyucchinatti bādhitamapi tu mithyājñānaṁ dvicandrajñānavatsaṁskāravaśātkaṁcitkālamanuvartata ēva। api ca naivātra vivaditavyam brahmavidā kaṁcitkālaṁ śarīraṁ dhriyatē na vā dhriyata iti kathaṁ hi ēkasya svahr̥dayapratyayaṁ brahmavēdanaṁ dēhadhāraṇaṁ ca aparēṇa pratikṣēptuṁ śakyēta śrutismr̥tiṣu ca sthitaprajñalakṣaṇanirdēśēna ētadēva nirucyatē। tasmādanārabdhakāryayōrēva sukr̥taduṣkr̥tayōrvidyāsāmarthyātkṣaya iti nirṇayaḥ।।	After the acquisition of knowledge, those virtues and vices that have not begun to yield their fruits and that were accumulated in earlier lives or even in this life before the dawn of knowledge are alone destroyed, but not so are those destroyed whose results have already been partially enjoyed and by which has been begun this present life in which the knowledge of Brahman arises. How is this known? Because the text, "He lingers so long only as he is not freed from the body; then he becomes free" (Ch. VI. xiv. 2), shows that liberation is put off till the death of the body. Were it not so, the text would not have spoken of any waiting till the death of the body. For one would then attain liberation immediately after the acquisition of knowledge inasmuch as there would be no reason for his continuing in the body after all the works are annihilated by knowledge. Opponent: If this realization that the Self is not an agent annihilates all results of work by its own intrinsic power, how can it demolish only some leaving behind others? For when the same kind of contact is present between fire and some seeds, it cannot be held that some of the seeds will lose their power of germination while others will not. Vedāntin: The answer is: It cannot be that knowledge can arise without the help of some residual results of actions that have begun to bear fruit. And when it is granted that knowledge is based on that medium (viz the body produced by the residual results), it is but natural that knowledge has to wait (for its result) till the acquired momentum of that medium exhausts itself out as in the case of a wheel of a potter; for there is nothing to stop it in the intervening period. As for the knowledge of the Self as the non-performer of any act, that destroys the results of works by first sublating false ignorance. This false ignorance, even when sublated, continues for a while owing to past tendencies like the continuance of the vision of two moons." Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to whether the body is retained (after knowledge) for some time or not by the knowers of Brahman. For when somebody feels in his heart that he has realized Brahman and yet holds the body, how can this be denied by somebody else? This very fact is elaborated in the U pani$3ds and the smṛtis in the course of determining the characteristics of "the man of steady wisdom" (stithaprajña - Gitā, II. 54). Hence the conclusion is that only those virtues and vices are washed away by knowledge which have not begun to bear fruit. -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् शारीरकब्रह्मसूत्र शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad śārīrakabrahmasūtra śaṅkarabhāṣya) (1.13-15)

In other words, निश्काम्य कर्म योग (niśkāmya karma yoga – yoga of detached/desireless action) is the secret of his breaking the vicious cycle of संसरण (saṁsaraṇa – transmigratory life). In fact,भगवान् श्री कृष्णपरमात्म (bhagavān śrī kṛṣṇaparamātma) himself testifies this truth in the following verses of श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता (śrīmadbhagavadgītā):

Original	Transliteration	Translation
प्रकृते क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वेशः। अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा अर्ताऽहमिति मन्यते॥ तत्त्ववित्तु महाबाहो गुणकर्मविभागयोः। गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्ते इति मत्वा न सज्जते॥	prakṛte kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarveśaḥ| ahaṅkāravimūḍhātmā artā'hamiti manyate|| tattvavittu mahābāho guṇakarmavibhāgayoḥ| guṇā guṇeṣu vartante iti matvā na sajjate||	While actions are being done in every way by the gunas (alities) of Nature, one who is deluded by egoism thinks thus: 'I am the doer.' But, O mighty-armed one, the one who is a knower of the facts about the varieties of the gunas (alities) and actions does not become attached, thinking thus: 'The organs rest (act) on the objects of the organs.' -Translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता (śrīmadbhagavadgītā) (3.27-28)

Let us look at what श्री आदिशङ्कराचार्य (śrī ādiśaṅkarācārya) has to further explain about this in his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above quoted श्लोकाः (ślokāḥ - verses)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
प्रकृतेः प्रकृतिः प्रधानं सत्त्वरजस्तमसां गुणानां साम्यावस्था तस्याः प्रकृतेः गुणैः विकारैः कार्यकरणरूपैः क्रियमाणानि कर्माणिलौकिकानि शास्त्रीयाणि च सर्वशः सर्वप्रकारैः अहंकारविमूढात्मा कार्यकरणसंघातात्मप्रत्ययः अहंकारः तेन विविधं नानाविधं मूढः आत्मा अन्तःकरणं यस्य सः अयं कार्यकरणधर्मा कार्यकरणाभिमानी अविद्यया कर्माणि आत्मनि मन्यमानः तत्तत्कर्मणाम् अहं कर्ता इति मन्यते।।यः पुनर्विद्वान् तत्त्ववित् तु महाबाहो। कस्य तत्त्ववित् गुणकर्मविभागयोः गुणविभागस्य कर्मविभागस्य च तत्त्ववित् इत्यर्थः। गुणाः करणात्मकाः गुणेषु विषयात्मकेषु वर्तन्ते न आत्मा इति मत्वा न सज्जते सक्तिं न करोति।।ये पुनः	prakr̥tēḥ prakr̥tiḥ pradhānaṁ sattvarajastamasāṁ guṇānāṁ sāmyāvasthā tasyāḥ prakr̥tēḥ guṇaiḥ vikāraiḥ kāryakaraṇarūpaiḥ kriyamāṇāni karmāṇilaukikāni śāstrīyāṇi ca sarvaśaḥ sarvaprakāraiḥ ahaṁkāravimūḍhātmā kāryakaraṇasaṁghātātmapratyayaḥ ahaṁkāraḥ tēna vividhaṁ nānāvidhaṁ mūḍhaḥ ātmā antaḥkaraṇaṁ yasya saḥ ayaṁ kāryakaraṇadharmā kāryakaraṇābhimānī avidyayā karmāṇi ātmani manyamānaḥ tattatkarmaṇām ahaṁ kartā iti manyatē।।yaḥ punarvidvān tattvavit tu mahābāhō। kasya tattvavit guṇakarmavibhāgayōḥ guṇavibhāgasya karmavibhāgasya ca tattvavit ityarthaḥ। guṇāḥ karaṇātmakāḥ guṇēṣu viṣayātmakēṣu vartantē na ātmā iti matvā na sajjatē saktiṁ na karōti।।yē punaḥ	Karmani kriyamanani, while actions, secular and scriptural, are being done; sarvasah, in ever way; gunaih, by the gunas, (i.e.) by the modifications in the form of body and organs; (born) prakrteh, of Nature-Nature, (otherwise known as) Pradhana [Pradhana, Maya, the Power of God.], being the state of eilibrium of the three alities of sattva, rajas and tamas; ahankara-vimudha-atma, one who is deluded by egoism; manyate, thinks; iti, thus; 'Aham karta, I am the doer.' Ahankara is self-identification with the aggregate of body and organs. He whose atma, mind, is vimudham, diluded in diverse ways, by that (ahankara) is ahankara-vimudha-atma. He who imagines the characteristics of the body and organs to be his own, who has self-identification with the body and the organs, and who, through ignorance, believes the activities to be his own-, he thinks, 'I am the doer of those diverse activities.' Tu, but, on the other hand; he who is a knower, tattva-vit, a knower of the facts;-knower of what kinds of facts?-guna-karma-vibhagayoh, about the varieties of the gunas and actions, i.e. a knower of the diversity of the gunas and the diversity of acitons; [Guna-vibhaga means the products of Prakrti which consists of the three gunas. They are the five subtle elements, mind, intellect, ego, five sensory organs, five motor organs and five objects (sound etc.) of the senses. Karma-vibhaga means the varieties of inter-actions among these.-Tr.] na sajjate, does not become attached; iti matva, thinking thus; 'Gunah, the gunas in the form of organs;-not the Self-vartante, rest (act); gunesu, on the gunus in the form of objects of the organs.' -Translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmadbhagavadgītā śaṅkarabhāṣya) (3.27,28)

Moreover, such a saint is also considered as the one who is गुणातीत (guṇātīta – beyond qualitative constraints). In other words, he has realized his true Self, and thereby has transcended the त्रिमलाः (trimalāḥ – tripple fetters) viz. आणवमल (āṇavamala- finitude fetter),  कर्ममल (karmamala- fate fetter) &  मायामल (māyāmala -  delusion fetter). The गुणातीत (guṇātīta – transcending qualities) also corresponds to the अवस्थात्रयी लौकिकचैतन्यस्य (avasthātrayī laukikacaitanyasya - triple states of mundane  consciousness) viz. जाग्रत् अवस्था (jāgrat avasthā – waking state), स्वप्न अवस्था (svapna avasthā – dream state) & सुषुप्ति अवस्था (suṣupti avasthā- sleep state) and is operating from the तुरीय अवस्था (turīya avasthā – fourth state), as hinted by श्री दत्तात्रेय (śrī dattātreya) in the sacred जीवन्मुक्तगीता (jīvanmuktagītā)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
सर्वभूते स्थितं ब्रह्म भेदाभेदो न विद्यते। एकमेवाभिपश्यंस्च जीवन्मुक्तः स उच्य्ते॥	sarvabhūte sthitaṁ brahma bhedābhedo na vidyate| ekamevābhipaśyaṁsca jīvanmuktaḥ sa ucyte||	He is called a Jivanmukta who has transcended the waking, dreaming and sleeping states and is established in the Eternal Consciousness of Self-Identity -Translation by Swami Sivananda
Sanskrit Reference: जीवन्मुक्तगीता (jīvanmuktagītā) (6)

जीवन् मुक्ति (jīvan  mukti – embodied salvation) is not a transformation to new state, rather it is rediscovery of the true nature of the self by the process of discriminating the real from the unreal. Such an enlightened soul, who has attained निर्विकल्प समाधि (nirvikalpa samādhi – non discriminative atonement) (described below) is generally honoured with a special title viz.परमहंस (paramahaṁsa - supreme swan). This is because they are compared to a mythological bird called हंस (haṁsa – goose/swan), which has a special ability of उचित विवेक (ucita viveka – right dicrimination) between milk and water.

On attaining जीवन् मुक्ति(jivan mukti – living liberation), the sage is said to be in a state of यौगिक ज्ञन निद्रा (yaugika jñana nidrā – yogic wisdom sleep) or that is the soul enjoys complete peace and tranquility like deep sleep, yet at the same time, it is in complete awareness. Sri Adi Shankara, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swamy Vivekananda, Sri Ramana Maharishi, Yoganandha Paramahamsa etc are some of the well known saints who have attained such state of consciousness. In தமிழ் சித்தர் இலக்கியம் (tamil siddar ilakkiyam – Tamil Siddha literature) such a state is also called as the தூங்காமல் தூங்கும் யோக நிலை (tūṅkāmal tūṅkum yōka nilai –  yogic state of sleepless sleep). For example, in these mystic verses, the eminent saint poet ஸ்ரீ பத்ரகிரியார்  (srī badragiriyār) exclaims thus:

Original	Transliteration	Translation
ஆங்காரம் உள்ளடக்கி ஐம்புலனைச் சுட்டறுத்துத் தூங்காமல் தூங்கிச் சுகம் பெறுவது எக்காலம். நீங்காச் சிவயோக நித்திரை கொண்டே இருந்து தேங்காக் கருணை வெள்ளம் தேக்குவதும் எக்காலம்.	āṅgāram uḷḷaṭakki aimpulaṉaic cuṭṭaṟuttut tūṅkāmal tūṅkic cukam peṟuvatu ekkālam. nīṅkāc civayōka nittirai koṇṭē iruntu tēṅkāk karuṇai veḷḷam tēkkuvatum ekkālam.	Ego is the poison that scorches the five senses, Without sleeping, without sleeping, obtaining happiness is eternal. Remaining in the state of Siva Yoga Sleep, Showering compassion like honey is also eternal. -translation source internet
Tamil Reference: பத்ரகிரியார்: மெய்ஞ்ஞானப் புலம்பல் (badragiriyār: meyññāṉap pulampal) (1,2)

Similarly, another noble saint poet ஸ்ரீ தாயுமானவர் (srī tāyumāṉavar) in his mystic outpour பைங்கிளிக்கண்ணி (paiṅkiḷikkaṇṇi) exclaims thus: 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
தூங்கிவிழித் தென்னபலன் தூங்காமல் தூங்கிநிற்கும் பாங்குகண்டால் அன்றோ பலன்காண்பேன் பைங்கிளியே.	tūṅkiviḻit teṉṉapalaṉ tūṅkāmal tūṅkiniṟkum pāṅkukaṇṭāl aṉṟō palaṉkāṇpēṉ paiṅkiḷiyē.	Oh! Thou beautiful parrot! Of what avail is it to sleep and wake up everyday? One should master the art of being slumberous and wakeful also. How? To realize the Self, through knowledge of the soul, by remaining sleepless and to stay also in a state of tranquil slumber like quietude of total contemplation. -translation by Prof. S.N Chockalingam
Tamil Reference: தாயுமானவர் பாடல்கள்: பைங்கிளிக்கண்ணி (tāyumāṉavar pāṭalkaḷ: paiṅkiḷikkaṇṇi) (44.5)

Again, in the case of महायाअ बौद्ध दर्शन (mahāyāa bauddha darśana), there is the noble idea that मुमुक्षु यात्रिक (mumukṣu yātrika – liberation seeking pilgrim) through the बोधिसत्त्व महायान   (bodhisattva mahāyāna  - grand vehicle of wisdom essence) prefers to attain what is technically called as the अप्रथिष्ठ निर्वाण (aprathiṣṭha nirvāṇa – nonfixed liberation). Of course, the preference is purely out of his परम कारुण्य  (parama kāruṇya - immense compassion) towards the समष्टि चैतन्य (samaṣṭi caitanya – collective consciousness) to also enjoy the bliss of ultimate spiritual enlightenment. 

In Hindu philosophies, particularly in the occult schools based on पतञ्जल योग दर्शन (patañjala yoga darśana)  such a state is sometimes called as धर्ममेघ समापत्ति (dharma megha samāpatti – Cloud (stream) of righteousness / virtue yielding) which is a kind of निर्बीज सहज समाधि (nirbīja sahaja samādhi - seedless natural atonement) based on निरालम्बन / निराधार  योग (nirālambana / nirādhāra  yoga – union without support / base). In केवलाद्वैत वेदान्त दर्शन (kevalādvaita vedānta darśana – absolute nondualstic philosophy) is referred as जीवन्मुक्त (jīvanmukta – living liberate)

Of course, that is the सहज अवस्था (sahaja avasthā - natural state) of any परिपूरित मुनि (paripūrita muni - fully accomplished saint) who could play one or more of the following roles योगि (yogi), ज्ञानि (jñāni), बोधिसत्त्व (bodhisattva), गुरु (guru), आचार्य (ācārya),  तीर्थण्कर (tīrthaṇkara), prophet, messaiya, רַבִּי (rabbi) etc. I am reminded of the golden verses of the noble Shaiva Saint திருமூலர் (tirumūlar) in his magnum opus poetic masterpiece திருமந்திரம் (tirumantiram)

Original	Transliteration	Translation
யான் பெற்ற இன்பம் பெறுக இவ் வையகம் வான்பற்றி நின்ற மறைப்பொருள் சொல்லிடின் ஊன்பற்றி நின்ற உணர்வுறு மந்திரம் தான் பற்றப் பற்றத் தலைப்படும் தானே	yāṉ peṟṟa iṉpam peṟuka iv vaiyakam vāṉpaṟṟi niṉṟa maṟaipporuḷ colliṭiṉ ūṉpaṟṟi niṉṟa uṇarvuṟu mantiram tāṉ paṟṟap paṟṟat talaippaṭum tāṉē	Bliss To Humanity All the world may well attain the Bliss I have; Who hold firm to the Heavenly secret the Books impart, Who chant the hymns that thrill the flesh And swell the heart, They, sure, take their place in foremost rank. .-translation Dr. B. Natarajan
Tamil Reference: திருமந்திரம் (tirumantiram) (1.85)

These sages have complete संन्यास (saṁnyāsa - renunciation) of the phenomenal world with a विवेच प्रज्ञ (viveca prajña – discriminative wisdom) between the real and the apparent self. Having attained अहं ब्रह्मास्मि / शिवोऽहं भाव  (ahaṁ brahmāsmi / śivo'haṁ bhāva), i.e. one who has realized his own चिदानन्दरूपः (cidānandarūpaḥ - blissfully conscious form) of atonement with Divinity, the जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – living liberate) detaches himself from the phenomenal and identifies himelf with the noumenal. The mystic ecstasy of such a saint is very beautifully reflected by श्री आदि शङ्कराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṅkarācārya bhagavatpāda) in the following verses of his famous work निर्वाणषट्कम् (nirvāṇaṣaṭkam), 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
मनोबुद्ध्यहंकर चित्तनि नहां न च श्रोत्रजिव्हे न च घाणेत्रे। न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वयुः चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम्॥ न च प्रणसज्ञो न वै पंचवयुः न व सप्तधातुः न व पज्ञ्चकोशः। न वक्पणिपदं न चोपस्थपायु चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम्॥ न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः। न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम्॥ न पुण्यं न पपं न सौख्यं न दुःखं न मन्त्रो न तीर्थो न वेदा न यज्ज। अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम्॥ न मे मृत्युशंका न मे जातिभेदः पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः। न बन्धुर्न मित्रः गुरुनैव शिष्यः चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम्॥ अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकार रूपो विभुत्वाच सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणम्। न चसङ्गत नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम्॥	manobuddhyahaṁkara cittani nahāṁ na ca śrotrajivhe na ca ghāṇetre| na ca vyoma bhūmirna tejo na vayuḥ cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham|| na ca praṇasajño na vai paṁcavayuḥ na va saptadhātuḥ na va pajñcakośaḥ| na vakpaṇipadaṁ na copasthapāyu cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham|| na me dveṣarāgau na me lobhamohau mado naiva me naiva mātsaryabhāvaḥ| na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokṣaḥ cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham|| na puṇyaṁ na papaṁ na saukhyaṁ na duḥkhaṁ na mantro na tīrtho na vedā na yaja| ahaṁ bhojanaṁ naiva bhojyaṁ na bhoktā cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham|| na me mṛtyuśaṁkā na me jātibhedaḥ pitā naiva me naiva mātā na janmaḥ| na bandhurna mitraḥ gurunaiva śiṣyaḥ cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham|| ahaṁ nirvikalpo nirākāra rūpo vibhutvāca sarvatra sarvendriyāṇam| na casaṅgata naiva muktirna meyaḥ cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham||	Neither am I mind, nor intelligence, Nor ego, nor thought, Nor am I ears or the tongue or the nose or the eyes, Nor am I earth or sky or air or the light, But I am Shiva the all pervading happiness, Yes,I am definitely Shiva. Neither am I the movement due to life, Nor am I the five airs, nor am I the seven elements, Nor am I the five internal organs, Nor am I voice or hands or feet or other organs, But I am Shiva the all pervading happiness, Yes,I am definitely Shiva I never do have enmity or friendship, Neither do I have vigour nor feeling of competition, Neither do I have assets, or money or passion or salvation, But I am Shiva the all pervading happiness, Yes,I am definitely Shiva Never do I have good deeds or sins or pleasure or sorrow, Neither do I have holy chants or holy water or holy books or fire sacrifice, I am neither food or the consumer who consumes food, As I am Shiva the all pervading happiness, Yes,I am definitely Shiva I do not have death or doubts or distinction of caste, I do not have either father or mother or even birth, And I do not have relations or friends or teacher or students, As I am Shiva the all pervading happiness, Yes,I am definitely Shiva I am one without doubts, I am without form, Due to knowledge I do not have any relation with my organs, And I am always redeemed, And I am Shiva the all pervading happiness, Yes,I am definitely Shiva -Translation by P.R. Ramachandran
Sanskrit Reference: निर्वाणषट्कम् (nirvāṇaṣaṭkam) (1-6)

In other words, unlike the case of a लौकिकबन्धात्म (laukika bandhātma  - mundane bound soul),  a जीवन् मुक्त (jīvan mukta – embodied liberate) who is a ब्रह्म ज्ञान स्थित प्रज्ञ यौगिक सिद्ध (brahma jñāna sthita prajña yogika siddha – spiritually enligtened yogic accomplisher who has attained stable wisdom) and who is consitently operating at निर्विकल्प कैवल्य समाधि (nirvikalpa kaivalya samādhi – non-discriminative absolute atonement), lives like a आर्यवीर (āryavīra - noblehero) who has conquered all his phenomenal limitations that could potentially bind him to the कर्म फाल (karma phāla – karmic fruits) of all his phenomenal actions, post liberation / enlightenment. This fact is very clearly testified in the following lines from the sacred बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)     

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तदेष श्लोको भवति । तदेव सक्तः सह कर्मणैति लिङ्गं मनो यत्र निषक्तमस्य । प्राप्यान्तं कर्मणस्तस्य यत्किञ्चेह करोत्ययम् । तस्माल्लोकात्पुनरैत्यस्मै लोकाय कर्मण ॥ इति नु कामयमानोऽथाकामयमानो योऽकामो निष्काम आप्तकाम आत्मकामो न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति ॥	tadeṣa śloko bhavati । tadeva saktaḥ saha karmaṇaiti liṅgaṁ mano yatra niṣaktamasya । prāpyāntaṁ karmaṇastasya yatkiñceha karotyayam । tasmāllokātpunaraityasmai lokāya karmaṇa ॥ iti nu kāmayamāno'thākāmayamāno yo'kāmo niṣkāma āptakāma ātmakāmo na tasya prāṇā utkrāmanti brahmaiva sanbrahmāpyeti ॥	Regarding this there is the following verse: 'Being attached, he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting the results of whatever work he did in this life, he returns from that world to this for (fresh) work.'. Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate). But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self - the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman. -translation by Swami Gambiranandha (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (4.4.6)

श्री आदि शंकराचार्य भगवत्पाद (śrī ādi śaṃkarācārya bhagavatpāda), as part of his famous भाष्य (bhāṣya - commentary) on the above quoted श्रुति वाक्य (śruti vākya – revelatory statement) further explains very clearly thus: 

Original	Transliteration	Translation
तत् तस्मिन्नर्थे एष श्लोकः मन्त्रोऽपि भवति । तदेव एति तदेव गच्छति, सक्त आसक्तः तत्र उद्भूताभिलाषः सन्नित्यर्थः ; कथमेति ? सह कर्मणा — यत् कर्मफलासक्तः सन् अकरोत् , तेन कर्मणा सहैव तत् एति तत्फलमेति ; किं तत् ? लिङ्गं मनः — मनःप्रधानत्वाल्लिङ्गस्य मनो लिङ्गमित्युच्यते ; अथवा लिङ्ग्यते अवगम्यते — अवगच्छति — येन, तत् लिङ्गम् , तत् मनः — यत्र यस्मिन् निषक्तं निश्चयेन सक्तम् उद्भूताभिलाषम् अस्य संसारिणः ; तदभिलाषो हि तत्कर्म कृतवान् ; तस्मात्तन्मनोऽभिषङ्गवशादेव अस्य तेन कर्मणा तत्फलप्राप्तिः । तेन एतत्सिद्धं भवति, कामो मूलं संसारस्येति । अतः उच्छिन्नकामस्य विद्यमानान्यपि कर्माणि ब्रह्मविदः वन्ध्याप्रसवानि भवन्ति, ‘पर्याप्तकामस्य कृतात्मनश्च इहैव सर्वे प्रविलीयन्ति कामाःऽ (मु. उ. ३ । २ । २) इति श्रुतेः । किञ्च प्राप्यान्तं कर्मणः — प्राप्य भुक्त्वा अन्तम् अवसानं यावत् , कर्मणः फलपरिसमाप्तिं कृत्वेत्यर्थः ; कस्य कर्मणोऽन्तं प्राप्येत्युच्यते — तस्य, यत्किञ्च कर्म इह अस्मिन् लोके करोति निर्वर्तयति अयम् , तस्य कर्मणः फलं भुक्त्वा अन्तं प्राप्य, तस्मात् लोकात् पुनः ऐति आगच्छति, अस्मै लोकाय कर्मणे — अयं हि लोकः कर्मप्रधानः, तेनाह ‘कर्मणेऽ इति — पुनः कर्मकरणाय ; पुनः कर्म कृत्वा फलासङ्गवशात् पुनरमुं लोकं याति — इत्येवम् । इति नु एवं नु, कामयमानः संसरति । यस्मात् कामयमान एव एवं संसरति, अथ तस्मात् , अकामयमानो न क्वचित्संसरति । फलासक्तस्य हि गतिरुक्ता ; अकामस्य हि क्रियानुपपत्तेः अकामयमानो मुच्यत एव । कथं पुनः अकामयमानो भवति ? यः अकामो भवति, असौ अकामयमानः । कथमकामतेत्युच्यते — यो निष्कामः यस्मान्निर्गताः कामाः सोऽयं निष्कामः । कथं कामा निर्गच्छन्ति ? य आप्तकामः भवति आप्ताः कामा येन स आप्तकामः । कथमाप्यन्ते कामाः ? आत्मकामत्वेन, यस्य आत्मैव नान्यः कामयितव्यो वस्त्वन्तरभूतः पदार्थो भवति ; आत्मैव अनन्तरोऽबाह्यः कृत्स्नः प्रज्ञानघन एकरसः नोर्ध्वं न तिर्यक् नाधः आत्मनोऽन्यत् कामयितव्यं वस्वन्तरम् — यस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत् , शृणुयात् , मन्वीत, विजानीयाद्वा — एवं विजानन्कं कामयेत । ज्ञायमानो ह्यन्यत्वेन पदार्थः कामयितव्यो भवति ; न चासावन्यः ब्रह्मविद आप्तकामस्यास्ति । य एवात्मकामतया आप्तकामः, स निष्कामः अकामः अकामयमानश्चेति मुच्यते । न हि यस्य आत्मैव सर्वं भवति, तस्य अनात्मा कामयितव्योऽस्ति । अनात्मा चान्यः कामयितव्यः, सर्वं च आत्मैवाभूदिति विप्रतिषिद्धम् । सर्वात्मदर्शिनः कामयितव्याभावात्कर्मानुपपत्तिः । ये तु प्रत्यवायपरिहारार्थं कर्म कल्पयन्ति ब्रह्मविदोऽपि, तेषां न आत्मैव सर्वं भवति, प्रत्यवायस्य जिहासितव्यस्य आत्मनोऽन्यस्य अभिप्रेतत्वात् । येन च अशनायाद्यतीतः नित्यं प्रत्यवायासम्बद्धः विदित आत्मा, तं वयं ब्रह्मविदं ब्रूमः ; नित्यमेव अशनायाद्यतीतमात्मानं पश्यति ; यस्माच्च जिहासितव्यमन्यम् उपादेयं वा यो न पश्यति, तस्य कर्म न शक्यत एव सम्बन्धुम् । यस्तु अब्रह्मवित् , तस्य भवत्येव प्रत्यवायपरिहारार्थं कर्मेति न विरोधः । अतः कामाभावात् अकामयमानो न जायते, मुच्यत एव ॥ तस्य एवमकामयमानस्य कर्माभावे गमनकारणाभावात् प्राणा वागादयः, नोत्क्रामन्ति नोर्ध्वं क्रामन्ति देहात् । स च विद्वान् आप्तकामः आत्मकामतया इहैव ब्रह्मभूतः । सर्वात्मनो हि ब्रह्मणः दृष्टान्तत्वेन प्रदर्शितम् एतद्रूपम् — ‘तद्वा अस्यैतदाप्तकाममकामं रूपम्ऽ (बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । २१) इति ; तस्य हि दार्ष्टान्तिकभूतोऽयमर्थ उपसंह्रियते — अथाकामयमान इत्यादिना । स कथमेवंभूतो मुच्यत इत्युच्यते — यो हि सुषुप्तावस्थमिव निर्विशेषमद्वैतम् अलुप्तचिद्रूपज्योतिःस्वभावम् आत्मानं पश्यति, तस्यैव अकामयमानस्य कर्माभावे गमनकारणाभावात् प्राणा वागादयो नोत्क्रामन्ति । किन्तु विद्वान् सः इहैव ब्रह्म, यद्यपि देहवानिव लक्ष्यते ; स ब्रह्मैव सन् ब्रह्म अप्येति । यस्मात् न हि तस्य अब्रह्मत्वपरिच्छेदहेतवः कामाः सन्ति, तस्मात् इहैव ब्रह्मैव सन् ब्रह्म अप्येति न शरीरपातोत्तरकालम् । न हि विदुषो मृतस्य भावान्तरापत्तिः जीवतोऽन्यः भावः, देहान्तरप्रतिसन्धानाभावमात्रेणैव तु ब्रह्माप्येतीत्युच्यते । भावान्तरापत्तौ हि मोक्षस्य सर्वोपनिषद्विवक्षितोऽर्थः आत्मैकत्वाख्यः स बाधितो भवेत् ; कर्महेतुकश्च मोक्षः प्राप्नोति, न ज्ञाननिमित्त इति ; स चानिष्टः ; अनित्यत्वं च मोक्षस्य प्राप्नोति ; न हि क्रियानिर्वृत्तः अर्थः नित्यो दृष्टः ; नित्यश्च मोक्षोऽभ्युपगम्यते, ‘एष नित्यो महिमाऽ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । २३) इति मन्त्रवर्णात् । न च स्वाभाविकात् स्वभावात् अन्यत् नित्यं कल्पयितुं शक्यम् । स्वाभाविकश्चेत् अग्न्युष्णवत् आत्मनः स्वभावः, स न शक्यते पुरुषव्यापारानुभावीति वक्तुम् ; न हि अग्नेरौष्ण्यं प्रकाशो वा अग्निव्यापारानन्तरानुभावी ; अग्निव्यापारानुभावी स्वाभाविकश्चेति विप्रतिषिद्धम् । ज्वलनव्यापारानुभावित्वम् उष्णप्रकाशयोरिति चेत् , न, अन्योपलब्धिव्यवधानापगमाभिव्यक्त्यपेक्षत्वात् ; ज्वलनादिपूर्वकम् अग्निः उष्णप्रकाशगुणाभ्यामभिव्यज्यते, तत् न अग्न्यपेक्षया ; किं तर्हि अन्यदृष्टेः अग्नेरौष्ण्यप्रकाशौ धर्मौ व्यवहितौ, कस्यचिद्दृष्ट्या तु असम्बध्यमानौ, ज्वलनापेक्षया व्यवधानापगमे दृष्टेरभिव्यज्येते ; तदपेक्षया भ्रान्तिरुपजायते — ज्वलनपूर्वकौ एतौ उष्णप्रकाशौ धर्मौ जाताविति । यदि उष्णप्रकाशयोरपि स्वाभाविकत्वं न स्यात् — यः स्वाभाविकोऽग्नेर्धर्मः, तमुदाहरिष्यामः ; न च स्वाभाविको धर्म एव नास्ति पदार्थानामिति शक्यं वक्तुम् ॥ न च निगडभङ्ग इव अभावभूतो मोक्षः बन्धननिवृत्तिरुपपद्यते, परमात्मैकत्वाभ्युपगमात् , ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयम्ऽ (छा. उ. ६ । २ । १) इति श्रुतेः ; न चान्यो बद्धोऽस्ति, यस्य निगडनिवृत्तिवत् बन्धननिवृत्तिः मोक्षः स्यात् ; परमात्मव्यतिरेकेण अन्यस्याभावं विस्तरेण अवादिष्म । तस्मात् अविद्यानिवृत्तिमात्रे मोक्षव्यवहार इति च अवोचाम, यथा रज्ज्वादौ सर्पाद्यज्ञाननिवृत्तौ सर्पादिनिवृत्तिः ॥ येऽप्याचक्षते — मोक्षे विज्ञानान्तरम् आनन्दान्तरं च अभिव्यज्यत इति, तैर्वक्तव्यः अभिव्यक्तिशब्दार्थः । यदि तावत् लौकिक्येव उपलब्धिविषयव्याप्तिः अभिव्यक्तिशब्दार्थः, ततो वक्तव्यम् — किं विद्यमानमभिव्यज्यते, अविद्यमानमिति वा । विद्यमानं चेत् , यस्य मुक्तस्य तदभिव्यज्यते तस्य आत्मभूतमेव तत् इति, उपलब्धिव्यवधानानुपपत्तेः नित्याभिव्यक्तत्वात् , मुक्तस्य अभिव्यज्यत इति विशेषवचनमनर्थकम् । अथ कदाचिदेव अभिव्यज्यते, उपलब्धिव्यवधानात् अनात्मभूतं तदिति, अन्यतोऽभिव्यक्तिप्रसङ्गः ; तथा च अभिव्यक्तिसाधनापेक्षता । उपलब्धिसमानाश्रयत्वे तु व्यवधानकल्पनानुपपत्तेः सर्वदा अभिव्यक्तिः, अनभिव्यक्तिर्वा ; न तु अन्तरालकल्पनायां प्रमाणमस्ति । न च समानाश्रयाणाम् एकस्य आत्मभूतानां धर्माणाम् इतरेतरविषयविषयित्वं सम्भवति । विज्ञानसुखयोश्च प्रागभिव्यक्तेः संसारित्वम् , अभिव्यक्त्युत्तरकालं च मुक्तत्वं यस्य — सोऽन्यः परस्मात् नित्याभिव्यक्तज्ञानस्वरूपात् अत्यन्तवैलक्षण्यात् , शैत्यमिव औष्ण्यात् ; परमात्मभेदकल्पनायां च वैदिकः कृतान्तः परित्यक्तः स्यात् । मोक्षस्य इदानीमिव निर्विशेषत्वे तदर्थाधिकयत्नानुपपत्तिः शास्त्रवैयर्थ्यं च प्राप्नोतीति चेत् , न, अविद्याभ्रमापोहार्थत्वात् ; न हि वस्तुतो मुक्तामुक्तत्वविशेषोऽस्ति, आत्मनो नित्यैकरूपत्वात् ; किन्तु तद्विषया अविद्या अपोह्यते शास्त्रोपदेशजनितविज्ञानेन ; प्राक्तदुपदेशप्राप्तेः तदर्थश्च प्रयत्न उपपद्यत एव । अविद्यावतः अविद्यानिवृत्त्यनिवृत्तिकृतः विशेषः आत्मनः स्यादिति चेत् , न, अविद्याकल्पनाविषयत्वाभ्युपगमात् , रज्जूषरशुक्तिकागगनानां सर्पोदकरजतमलिनत्वादिवत् , अदोष इत्यवोचाम । तिमिरातिमिरदृष्टिवत् अविद्याकर्तृत्वाकर्तृत्वकृत आत्मनो विशेषः स्यादिति चेत् , न, ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीवऽ (बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । ७) इति स्वतः अविद्याकर्तृत्वस्य प्रतिषिद्धत्वात् ; अनेकव्यापारसन्निपातजनितत्वाच्च अविद्याभ्रमस्य ; विषयत्वोपपत्तेश्च ; यस्य च अविद्याभ्रमो घटादिवत् विविक्तो गृह्यते, सः न अविद्याभ्रमवान् । अहं न जाने मुग्धोऽस्मीति प्रत्ययदर्शनात् ; अविद्याभ्रमवत्त्वमेवेति चेत् , न, तस्यापि विवेकग्रहणात् ; न हि यो यस्य विवेकेन ग्रहीता, स तस्मिन्भ्रान्त इत्युच्यते ; तस्य च विवेकग्रहणम् , तस्मिन्नेव च भ्रमः — इति विप्रतिषिद्धम् ; न जाने मुग्धोऽस्मीति दृश्यते इति ब्रवीषि — तद्दर्शिनश्च अज्ञानं मुग्धरूपता दृश्यत इति च — तद्दर्शनस्य विषयो भवति, कर्मतामापद्यत इति ; तत् कथं कर्मभूतं सत् कर्तृस्वरूपदृशिविशेषणम् अज्ञानमुग्धते स्याताम् ? अथ दृशिविशेषणत्वं तयोः, कथं कर्म स्याताम् — दृशिना व्याप्येते ? कर्म हि कर्तृक्रियया व्याप्यमानं भवति ; अन्यश्च व्याप्यम् , अन्यम् व्यापकम् ; न तेनैव तत् व्याप्यते ; वद, कथम् एवं सति, अज्ञानमुग्धते दृशिविशेषणे स्याताम् ? न च अज्ञानविवेकदर्शी अज्ञानम् आत्मनः कर्मभूतमुपलभमानः उपलब्धृधर्मत्वेन गृह्णाति, शरीरे कार्श्यरूपादिवत् तथा । सुखदुःखेच्छाप्रयत्नादीन् सर्वो लोकः गृह्णातीति चेत् , तथापि ग्रहीतुर्लोकस्य विविक्ततैव अभ्युपगता स्यात् । न जानेऽहं त्वदुक्तं मुग्ध एव इति चेत् — भवतु अज्ञो मुग्धः, यस्तु एवंदर्शी, तं ज्ञम् अमुग्धं प्रतिजानीमहे वयम् । तथा व्यासेनोक्तम् — ‘इच्छादि कृत्स्नं क्षेत्रं क्षेत्री प्रकाशयतीतिऽ(भ.गी.१३/३३), ‘समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम् । विनश्यत्स्वविनश्यन्तम् —ऽ (भ. गी. १३ । २७) इत्यादि शतश उक्तम् । तस्मात् न आत्मनः स्वतः बद्धमुक्तज्ञानाज्ञानकृतो विशेषः अस्ति, सर्वदा समैकरसस्वाभाव्याभ्युपगमात् । ये तु अतोऽन्यथा आत्मवस्तु परिकल्प्य बन्धमोक्षादिशास्त्रं च अर्थवादमापादयन्ति, ते उत्सहन्ते — खेऽपि शाकुनं पदं द्रष्टुम् , खं वा मुष्टिना आक्रष्टुम् , चर्मवद्वेष्टितुम् ; वयं तु तत् कर्तुमशक्ताः ; सर्वदा समैकरसम् अद्वैतम् अविक्रियम् अजम् अजरम् अमरम् अमृतम् अभयम् आत्मतत्त्वं ब्रह्मैव स्मः — इत्येष सर्ववेदान्तनिश्चितोऽर्थ इत्येवं प्रतिपद्यामहे । तस्मात् ब्रह्मात्येतीति उपचारमात्रमेतत् , विपरीतग्रहवद्देहसन्ततेः विच्छेदमात्रं विज्ञानफलमपेक्ष्य ॥ स्वप्नबुद्धान्तगमनदृष्टान्तस्य दार्ष्टान्तिकः संसारो वर्णितः । संसारहेतुश्च विद्याकर्मपूर्वप्रज्ञा वर्णिता । यैश्च उपाधिभूतैः कार्यकरणलक्षणभूतैः परिवेष्टितः संसारित्वमनुभवति, तानि चोक्तानि । तेषां साक्षात्प्रयोजकौ धर्माधर्माविति पूर्वपक्षं कृत्वा, काम एवेत्यवधारितम् । यथा च ब्राह्मणेन अयम् अर्थः अवधारितः, एवं मन्त्रेणापीति बन्धं बन्धकारणं च उक्त्वा उपसंहृतं प्रकरणम् — ‘इति नु कामयमानःऽ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । ६) इति । ‘अथाकामयमानःऽ (बृ. उ. ४ । ४ । ६) इत्यारभ्य सुषुप्तदृष्टान्तस्य दार्ष्टान्तिकभूतः सर्वात्मभावो मोक्ष उक्तः । मोक्षकारणं च आत्मकामतया यत् आप्तकामत्वमुक्तम् , तच्च सामर्थ्यात् न आत्मज्ञानमन्तरेण आत्मकामतया आप्तकामत्वमिति — सामर्थ्यात् ब्रह्मविद्यैव मोक्षकारणमित्युक्तम् । अतः यद्यपि कामो मूलमित्युक्तम् , तथापि मोक्षकारणविपर्ययेण बन्धकारणम् अविद्या इत्येतदपि उक्तमेव भवति । अत्रापि मोक्षः मोक्षसाधनं च ब्राह्मणेनोक्तम् ; तस्यैव दृढीकरणाय मन्त्र उदाह्रियते श्लोकशब्दवाच्यः —	tat tasminnarthe eṣa ślokaḥ mantro'pi bhavati । tadeva eti tadeva gacchati, sakta āsaktaḥ tatra udbhūtābhilāṣaḥ sannityarthaḥ ; kathameti ? saha karmaṇā — yat karmaphalāsaktaḥ san akarot , tena karmaṇā sahaiva tat eti tatphalameti ; kiṁ tat ? liṅgaṁ manaḥ — manaḥpradhānatvālliṅgasya mano liṅgamityucyate ; athavā liṅgyate avagamyate — avagacchati — yena, tat liṅgam , tat manaḥ — yatra yasmin niṣaktaṁ niścayena saktam udbhūtābhilāṣam asya saṁsāriṇaḥ ; tadabhilāṣo hi tatkarma kṛtavān ; tasmāttanmano'bhiṣaṅgavaśādeva asya tena karmaṇā tatphalaprāptiḥ । tena etatsiddhaṁ bhavati, kāmo mūlaṁ saṁsārasyeti । ataḥ ucchinnakāmasya vidyamānānyapi karmāṇi brahmavidaḥ vandhyāprasavāni bhavanti, ‘paryāptakāmasya kṛtātmanaśca ihaiva sarve pravilīyanti kāmāḥ’ (mu. u. 3 । 2 । 2) iti śruteḥ । kiñca prāpyāntaṁ karmaṇaḥ — prāpya bhuktvā antam avasānaṁ yāvat , karmaṇaḥ phalaparisamāptiṁ kṛtvetyarthaḥ ; kasya karmaṇo'ntaṁ prāpyetyucyate — tasya, yatkiñca karma iha asmin loke karoti nirvartayati ayam , tasya karmaṇaḥ phalaṁ bhuktvā antaṁ prāpya, tasmāt lokāt punaḥ aiti āgacchati, asmai lokāya karmaṇe — ayaṁ hi lokaḥ karmapradhānaḥ, tenāha ‘karmaṇe’ iti — punaḥ karmakaraṇāya ; punaḥ karma kṛtvā phalāsaṅgavaśāt punaramuṁ lokaṁ yāti — ityevam । iti nu evaṁ nu, kāmayamānaḥ saṁsarati । yasmāt kāmayamāna eva evaṁ saṁsarati, atha tasmāt , akāmayamāno na kvacitsaṁsarati । phalāsaktasya hi gatiruktā ; akāmasya hi kriyānupapatteḥ akāmayamāno mucyata eva । kathaṁ punaḥ akāmayamāno bhavati ? yaḥ akāmo bhavati, asau akāmayamānaḥ । kathamakāmatetyucyate — yo niṣkāmaḥ yasmānnirgatāḥ kāmāḥ so'yaṁ niṣkāmaḥ । kathaṁ kāmā nirgacchanti ? ya āptakāmaḥ bhavati āptāḥ kāmā yena sa āptakāmaḥ । kathamāpyante kāmāḥ ? ātmakāmatvena, yasya ātmaiva nānyaḥ kāmayitavyo vastvantarabhūtaḥ padārtho bhavati ; ātmaiva anantaro'bāhyaḥ kṛtsnaḥ prajñānaghana ekarasaḥ nordhvaṁ na tiryak nādhaḥ ātmano'nyat kāmayitavyaṁ vasvantaram — yasya sarvamātmaivābhūttatkena kaṁ paśyet , śṛṇuyāt , manvīta, vijānīyādvā — evaṁ vijānankaṁ kāmayeta । jñāyamāno hyanyatvena padārthaḥ kāmayitavyo bhavati ; na cāsāvanyaḥ brahmavida āptakāmasyāsti । ya evātmakāmatayā āptakāmaḥ, sa niṣkāmaḥ akāmaḥ akāmayamānaśceti mucyate । na hi yasya ātmaiva sarvaṁ bhavati, tasya anātmā kāmayitavyo'sti । anātmā cānyaḥ kāmayitavyaḥ, sarvaṁ ca ātmaivābhūditi vipratiṣiddham । sarvātmadarśinaḥ kāmayitavyābhāvātkarmānupapattiḥ । ye tu pratyavāyaparihārārthaṁ karma kalpayanti brahmavido'pi, teṣāṁ na ātmaiva sarvaṁ bhavati, pratyavāyasya jihāsitavyasya ātmano'nyasya abhipretatvāt । yena ca aśanāyādyatītaḥ nityaṁ pratyavāyāsambaddhaḥ vidita ātmā, taṁ vayaṁ brahmavidaṁ brūmaḥ ; nityameva aśanāyādyatītamātmānaṁ paśyati ; yasmācca jihāsitavyamanyam upādeyaṁ vā yo na paśyati, tasya karma na śakyata eva sambandhum । yastu abrahmavit , tasya bhavatyeva pratyavāyaparihārārthaṁ karmeti na virodhaḥ । ataḥ kāmābhāvāt akāmayamāno na jāyate, mucyata eva ॥ tasya evamakāmayamānasya karmābhāve gamanakāraṇābhāvāt prāṇā vāgādayaḥ, notkrāmanti nordhvaṁ krāmanti dehāt । sa ca vidvān āptakāmaḥ ātmakāmatayā ihaiva brahmabhūtaḥ । sarvātmano hi brahmaṇaḥ dṛṣṭāntatvena pradarśitam etadrūpam — ‘tadvā asyaitadāptakāmamakāmaṁ rūpam’ (bṛ. u. 4 । 3 । 21) iti ; tasya hi dārṣṭāntikabhūto'yamartha upasaṁhriyate — athākāmayamāna ityādinā । sa kathamevaṁbhūto mucyata ityucyate — yo hi suṣuptāvasthamiva nirviśeṣamadvaitam aluptacidrūpajyotiḥsvabhāvam ātmānaṁ paśyati, tasyaiva akāmayamānasya karmābhāve gamanakāraṇābhāvāt prāṇā vāgādayo notkrāmanti । kintu vidvān saḥ ihaiva brahma, yadyapi dehavāniva lakṣyate ; sa brahmaiva san brahma apyeti । yasmāt na hi tasya abrahmatvaparicchedahetavaḥ kāmāḥ santi, tasmāt ihaiva brahmaiva san brahma apyeti na śarīrapātottarakālam । na hi viduṣo mṛtasya bhāvāntarāpattiḥ jīvato'nyaḥ bhāvaḥ, dehāntarapratisandhānābhāvamātreṇaiva tu brahmāpyetītyucyate । bhāvāntarāpattau hi mokṣasya sarvopaniṣadvivakṣito'rthaḥ ātmaikatvākhyaḥ sa bādhito bhavet ; karmahetukaśca mokṣaḥ prāpnoti, na jñānanimitta iti ; sa cāniṣṭaḥ ; anityatvaṁ ca mokṣasya prāpnoti ; na hi kriyānirvṛttaḥ arthaḥ nityo dṛṣṭaḥ ; nityaśca mokṣo'bhyupagamyate, ‘eṣa nityo mahimā’ (bṛ. u. 4 । 4 । 23) iti mantravarṇāt । na ca svābhāvikāt svabhāvāt anyat nityaṁ kalpayituṁ śakyam । svābhāvikaścet agnyuṣṇavat ātmanaḥ svabhāvaḥ, sa na śakyate puruṣavyāpārānubhāvīti vaktum ; na hi agnerauṣṇyaṁ prakāśo vā agnivyāpārānantarānubhāvī ; agnivyāpārānubhāvī svābhāvikaśceti vipratiṣiddham । jvalanavyāpārānubhāvitvam uṣṇaprakāśayoriti cet , na, anyopalabdhivyavadhānāpagamābhivyaktyapekṣatvāt ; jvalanādipūrvakam agniḥ uṣṇaprakāśaguṇābhyāmabhivyajyate, tat na agnyapekṣayā ; kiṁ tarhi anyadṛṣṭeḥ agnerauṣṇyaprakāśau dharmau vyavahitau, kasyaciddṛṣṭyā tu asambadhyamānau, jvalanāpekṣayā vyavadhānāpagame dṛṣṭerabhivyajyete ; tadapekṣayā bhrāntirupajāyate — jvalanapūrvakau etau uṣṇaprakāśau dharmau jātāviti । yadi uṣṇaprakāśayorapi svābhāvikatvaṁ na syāt — yaḥ svābhāviko'gnerdharmaḥ, tamudāhariṣyāmaḥ ; na ca svābhāviko dharma eva nāsti padārthānāmiti śakyaṁ vaktum ॥ na ca nigaḍabhaṅga iva abhāvabhūto mokṣaḥ bandhananivṛttirupapadyate, paramātmaikatvābhyupagamāt , ‘ekamevādvitīyam’ (chā. u. 6 । 2 । 1) iti śruteḥ ; na cānyo baddho'sti, yasya nigaḍanivṛttivat bandhananivṛttiḥ mokṣaḥ syāt ; paramātmavyatirekeṇa anyasyābhāvaṁ vistareṇa avādiṣma । tasmāt avidyānivṛttimātre mokṣavyavahāra iti ca avocāma, yathā rajjvādau sarpādyajñānanivṛttau sarpādinivṛttiḥ ॥ ye'pyācakṣate — mokṣe vijñānāntaram ānandāntaraṁ ca abhivyajyata iti, tairvaktavyaḥ abhivyaktiśabdārthaḥ । yadi tāvat laukikyeva upalabdhiviṣayavyāptiḥ abhivyaktiśabdārthaḥ, tato vaktavyam — kiṁ vidyamānamabhivyajyate, avidyamānamiti vā । vidyamānaṁ cet , yasya muktasya tadabhivyajyate tasya ātmabhūtameva tat iti, upalabdhivyavadhānānupapatteḥ nityābhivyaktatvāt , muktasya abhivyajyata iti viśeṣavacanamanarthakam । atha kadācideva abhivyajyate, upalabdhivyavadhānāt anātmabhūtaṁ taditi, anyato'bhivyaktiprasaṅgaḥ ; tathā ca abhivyaktisādhanāpekṣatā । upalabdhisamānāśrayatve tu vyavadhānakalpanānupapatteḥ sarvadā abhivyaktiḥ, anabhivyaktirvā ; na tu antarālakalpanāyāṁ pramāṇamasti । na ca samānāśrayāṇām ekasya ātmabhūtānāṁ dharmāṇām itaretaraviṣayaviṣayitvaṁ sambhavati । vijñānasukhayośca prāgabhivyakteḥ saṁsāritvam , abhivyaktyuttarakālaṁ ca muktatvaṁ yasya — so'nyaḥ parasmāt nityābhivyaktajñānasvarūpāt atyantavailakṣaṇyāt , śaityamiva auṣṇyāt ; paramātmabhedakalpanāyāṁ ca vaidikaḥ kṛtāntaḥ parityaktaḥ syāt । mokṣasya idānīmiva nirviśeṣatve tadarthādhikayatnānupapattiḥ śāstravaiyarthyaṁ ca prāpnotīti cet , na, avidyābhramāpohārthatvāt ; na hi vastuto muktāmuktatvaviśeṣo'sti, ātmano nityaikarūpatvāt ; kintu tadviṣayā avidyā apohyate śāstropadeśajanitavijñānena ; prāktadupadeśaprāpteḥ tadarthaśca prayatna upapadyata eva । avidyāvataḥ avidyānivṛttyanivṛttikṛtaḥ viśeṣaḥ ātmanaḥ syāditi cet , na, avidyākalpanāviṣayatvābhyupagamāt , rajjūṣaraśuktikāgaganānāṁ sarpodakarajatamalinatvādivat , adoṣa ityavocāma । timirātimiradṛṣṭivat avidyākartṛtvākartṛtvakṛta ātmano viśeṣaḥ syāditi cet , na, ‘dhyāyatīva lelāyatīva’ (bṛ. u. 4 । 3 । 7) iti svataḥ avidyākartṛtvasya pratiṣiddhatvāt ; anekavyāpārasannipātajanitatvācca avidyābhramasya ; viṣayatvopapatteśca ; yasya ca avidyābhramo ghaṭādivat vivikto gṛhyate, saḥ na avidyābhramavān । ahaṁ na jāne mugdho'smīti pratyayadarśanāt ; avidyābhramavattvameveti cet , na, tasyāpi vivekagrahaṇāt ; na hi yo yasya vivekena grahītā, sa tasminbhrānta ityucyate ; tasya ca vivekagrahaṇam , tasminneva ca bhramaḥ — iti vipratiṣiddham ; na jāne mugdho'smīti dṛśyate iti bravīṣi — taddarśinaśca ajñānaṁ mugdharūpatā dṛśyata iti ca — taddarśanasya viṣayo bhavati, karmatāmāpadyata iti ; tat kathaṁ karmabhūtaṁ sat kartṛsvarūpadṛśiviśeṣaṇam ajñānamugdhate syātām ? atha dṛśiviśeṣaṇatvaṁ tayoḥ, kathaṁ karma syātām — dṛśinā vyāpyete ? karma hi kartṛkriyayā vyāpyamānaṁ bhavati ; anyaśca vyāpyam , anyam vyāpakam ; na tenaiva tat vyāpyate ; vada, katham evaṁ sati, ajñānamugdhate dṛśiviśeṣaṇe syātām ? na ca ajñānavivekadarśī ajñānam ātmanaḥ karmabhūtamupalabhamānaḥ upalabdhṛdharmatvena gṛhṇāti, śarīre kārśyarūpādivat tathā । sukhaduḥkhecchāprayatnādīn sarvo lokaḥ gṛhṇātīti cet , tathāpi grahīturlokasya viviktataiva abhyupagatā syāt । na jāne'haṁ tvaduktaṁ mugdha eva iti cet — bhavatu ajño mugdhaḥ, yastu evaṁdarśī, taṁ jñam amugdhaṁ pratijānīmahe vayam । tathā vyāsenoktam — ‘icchādi kṛtsnaṁ kṣetraṁ kṣetrī prakāśayatīti’(bha.gī.13/33), ‘samaṁ sarveṣu bhūteṣu tiṣṭhantaṁ parameśvaram । vinaśyatsvavinaśyantam —’ (bha. gī. 13 । 27) ityādi śataśa uktam । tasmāt na ātmanaḥ svataḥ baddhamuktajñānājñānakṛto viśeṣaḥ asti, sarvadā samaikarasasvābhāvyābhyupagamāt । ye tu ato'nyathā ātmavastu parikalpya bandhamokṣādiśāstraṁ ca arthavādamāpādayanti, te utsahante — khe'pi śākunaṁ padaṁ draṣṭum , khaṁ vā muṣṭinā ākraṣṭum , carmavadveṣṭitum ; vayaṁ tu tat kartumaśaktāḥ ; sarvadā samaikarasam advaitam avikriyam ajam ajaram amaram amṛtam abhayam ātmatattvaṁ brahmaiva smaḥ — ityeṣa sarvavedāntaniścito'rtha ityevaṁ pratipadyāmahe । tasmāt brahmātyetīti upacāramātrametat , viparītagrahavaddehasantateḥ vicchedamātraṁ vijñānaphalamapekṣya ॥ svapnabuddhāntagamanadṛṣṭāntasya dārṣṭāntikaḥ saṁsāro varṇitaḥ । saṁsārahetuśca vidyākarmapūrvaprajñā varṇitā । yaiśca upādhibhūtaiḥ kāryakaraṇalakṣaṇabhūtaiḥ pariveṣṭitaḥ saṁsāritvamanubhavati, tāni coktāni । teṣāṁ sākṣātprayojakau dharmādharmāviti pūrvapakṣaṁ kṛtvā, kāma evetyavadhāritam । yathā ca brāhmaṇena ayam arthaḥ avadhāritaḥ, evaṁ mantreṇāpīti bandhaṁ bandhakāraṇaṁ ca uktvā upasaṁhṛtaṁ prakaraṇam — ‘iti nu kāmayamānaḥ’ (bṛ. u. 4 । 4 । 6) iti । ‘athākāmayamānaḥ’ (bṛ. u. 4 । 4 । 6) ityārabhya suṣuptadṛṣṭāntasya dārṣṭāntikabhūtaḥ sarvātmabhāvo mokṣa uktaḥ । mokṣakāraṇaṁ ca ātmakāmatayā yat āptakāmatvamuktam , tacca sāmarthyāt na ātmajñānamantareṇa ātmakāmatayā āptakāmatvamiti — sāmarthyāt brahmavidyaiva mokṣakāraṇamityuktam । ataḥ yadyapi kāmo mūlamityuktam , tathāpi mokṣakāraṇaviparyayeṇa bandhakāraṇam avidyā ityetadapi uktameva bhavati । atrāpi mokṣaḥ mokṣasādhanaṁ ca brāhmaṇenoktam ; tasyaiva dṛḍhīkaraṇāya mantra udāhriyate ślokaśabdavācyaḥ —	Regarding this subject there is also the following verse: Being attached, i.e. with his desire for it roused, he, the man who transmigrates, together with the work that he did with attachment to its result, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is firmly attached, i.e. for which it yearns, since he did the work out of a desire for that.—The mind is called the subtle body, Liṅga, because it is the principal part of the latter; or the word ‘Liṅga' may mean a sign, that which indicates the self.—Therefore, only on account of this attachment of his mind, he attains the result through that action. This proves that desire is the root of transmigratory existence. Hence a knower of Brahman who has rooted out his desires may work, but it will produce no (baneful) result; for the Śruti says, ‘For one who has completely attained the objects of his desire and realised the Self, all desires dissolve in this very life’ (Mu. III. ii. 2). Further, exhausting the results of work—what kind of work?—whatever work he did in this life, by experiencing them, he returns from that world to this for work, for work holds the foremost place in this World. Hence the text says, ‘For work,’ i.e. to work again. After working again, he, owing to attachment to results, again goes to the next world, and so on. Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. Since it is this man of desire that transmigrates thus, therefore the man who does not desire, does not transmigrate anywhere. It has been said that only the man who is attached to results transmigrates. Since one who has no desires cannot perform (ritualistic) work, the man who does not desire necessarily attains liberation. How does a man cease to desire? He who is without desires is the man who does not desire. How is this absence of desire attained? This is being explained: Who is free from desires, i.e. whom desires have left. How do they leave? The objects of whose desire have been attained. How are they attained? Because he is one to whom all objects of desire are but the Self—who has only the Self, and nothing else separate from It that can be desired; to whom the Self alone exists— the Pure Intelligence without interior or exterior, entire and homogeneous; and neither above nor below nor in the middle is there anything else but the Self to be desired. What should a person desire who has realised: ‘When everything has become the Self to one, what should one see, hear, think or know, and through what? For a thing that is known as other than oneself may become an object of desire. But such a thing does not exist for the knower of Brahman, the objects of whose desire have all been attained. He to whom all objects of desire, being but the Self, are already attained, is alone free from desires, is without desires, and does not desire any more; hence he attains liberation. For he to whom everything is the Self, has nothing else to desire. It is contradictory to say that he has something other than the Self to desire, and again, that to him everything is the Self. Since a man who has realised his identity with all has nothing to desire, he cannot perform rites. Those who hold that even a knower of Brahman must perform rites in order to avoid evil, cannot say that to him everything is the Self, for they regard the evil that they wish him to avoid as different from the Seif. Whereas we call him a knower of Brahman who constantly knows the Self which is beyond hunger etc. and untouched by evil; he constantly sees the Self which is beyond hunger and so forth. Work can never touch him who does not see anything other than the Self to be avoided or received. But one who is not a knower of Brahman must perform rites to avoid evil. Hence there is no contradiction. Therefore, having no desires, the person who does not desire is no more born; he attains only liberation. Since the man who does not desire has no work and therefore has no cause to go to the next world, his organs such as that of speech do not depart or go up from the body. That man of realisation who has attained all the objects of his desire, since they are but the Self to him, has become Brahman in this very life, for as an illustration of the Infinite Brahman the following form was pointed out: That is his form—in which all objects of desire have been attained and are but the Self, and which is free from desires’ (IV. iii. 21.) Now that of which the above is an illustration is being concluded in the words, ‘But the man who does not desire,’ etc. How does such a man attain liberation? This is being stated: He who sees the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as undifferentiated, one without a second, and as the constant light of Pure Intelligence—only this disinterested man has no work and consequently no cause for transmigration; therefore his organs such as that of speech do not depart. Rather this man of realisation is Brahman in this very life, although he seems to have a body. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman. Because he has no desires that cause the limitation of non-Brahmanhood, therefore ‘being but Brahman he is merged in Brahman’ in this very life, not after the body falls. A man of realisation, after his death, has no change of condition—something different from what he was in life, but he is only not connected with another body. This is what is meant by his becoming ‘merged in Brahman’; for if liberation was a change of condition, it would contradict the unity of the Self that all the Upaniṣads seek to teach. And liberation would be the effect of work, not of knowledge—which nobody would desire. Further, it would become transitory, for nothing that has been produced by an action is seen to be eternal, but liberation is admitted to be eternal, as the Mantra says, ‘This is the eternal glory (of a knower of Brahman),’ etc. (IV. iv. 23). Moreover, nothing but the inherent nature of a thing can be regarded as eternal. If liberation is the nature of the self, like the heat of ñre, it cannot be said to be a consequence of human activity. The heat or light of fire is surely not a consequence of the activity of fire; it is a contradiction in terms to say that they are, and yet that they are the natural properties of fire. If it be urged that they are an outcome of the activity of combustion, the answer is, no, because they depend on manifestation by the removal of obstructions to one’s perception. That fire is manifested through its qualities of heat and light by the process of combustion etc., is due not to the fire itself, but to the fact that those qualities, not being connected with anybody’s vision, were hidden, and are manifested when the obstructionś. to vision are removed by the process of combustion. This leads to the error that the qualities of heat and light are produced by the combustion. If heat and light are not admitted as the natural properties of fire, well then, we shall cite as examples whatever be its natural properties. Nobody can say that things have no natural properties at all. Nor can liberation be a mere negative something—the cessation of bondage, like the breaking of fetters, for the Supreme Self is supposed to be the only entity that exists. As the Śruti says, ‘One only without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1.). And there is no other entity that is bound, whose freedom from bondage, as from fetters, would be liberation, for we have spoken at length of the absence of any other entity but the Supreme Self. Therefore, as we have also said, the cessation of ignorance alone is commonly called liberation, like the disappearance of the snake, for instance, from the rope when the erroneous notion about its existence has been dispelled. Those who hold that in liberation a new knowledge and bliss are manifested, should explain what they mean by manifestation. If it means ordinary perception or the cognition of objects, they should state whether the knowledge or bliss that is manifested is existent or non-existent. If it is existent, it is the very self of that liberated man to whom it is manifested; hence, there being possibly no bar to the perception, it will always be manifest, and for this reason it is meaningless to specify its being manifest to the liberated man. If, however, it is manifest only at certain times, then because of the obstacles to its perception, it is different from the self, and therefore there arises the question of its manifestation through some other means; hence there will be the necessity of these means also. But if the knowledge and bliss in question have the same support as the perception, then, there being no possibility of obstacles, they will either be always manifest or always hidden; there is no warrant for conceiving an intermediate stage between the two. Now attributes that have the same support, and are a part and parcel of the same substance, cannot have the relation of subject and object to one another. Besides, the entity that is subject to transmigration before the manifestation of knowledge and bliss, and liberated after it, must be different from the Supreme Self, the eternally manifest Knowledge Absolute, for the two are totally different from each other, like heat and cold; and if differences are admitted in the Supreme Self, the Vedic position will be abandoned. Objection: If liberation makes no difference from the present state, it is unreasonable to make a particular effort for it, and the scriptures too become useless. Reply: No, for both are necessary to remove the delusion created by ignorance. Really there is no such distinction as liberation and bondage in the self, for it is eternally the same; but the ignorance regarding it is removed by the knowledge arising from the teachings of the scriptures, and prior to the receiving of these teachings, the effort to attain liberation is perfectly reasonable. Objection: There will be some difference in thé self that is under ignorance, due to the cessation or continuance of that ignorance. Reply: No; we have already (p. 477) said that it is admitted to be the creation of ignorance, like a rope, a desert, a mother-of-pearl and the sky appearing as a snake, water, silver, and blue respectively. Objection: But there will be some difference in the self due to its being or not being the cause of ignorance, as in the case of man affected with the eye-disease called Timira or free from it. Reply: No, for the Śruti denies that the Ātman by itself is the cause of ignorance, as in the passage, ‘It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were’ (IV. iii. 7); and the error we call ignorance is due to a combination of diverse activities. Another reason is that ignorance is an object witnessed by the self. He who visualises the error of ignorance as something distinct from his own self, like a jar etc., is not himself under that error. Objection: Surely he is under that error, for one feels that one sometimes has the notion, ‘I do not know, I am confused.’ Reply: No, for that too is distinctly perceived. He who distinctly perceives a thing cannot surely be said to be mistaken about it; it is self-contradictory to say that he perceives it distinctly, and at the same time, that he is mistaken about it. You say that a person feels, ‘I do not know, I am confused’: thereby you admit that he visualises his ignorance and confusion, in other words, that these become the objects of his experience. So how can the ignorance and confusion, which are objects, be at the same time a description of the subject, the perceiver? If, on the other hand, they are a description of the subject, how can they be objects and be perceived by the subject? An object is perceived by an act of the subject. The object is one thing, and the subject another; it cannot be perceived by itself. Tell me how under such circumstances the ignorance and confusion can be a description of the subject. Moreover, a person who sees ignorance as something distinct—perceives it as an object of his own cognition—does not regard it as an attribute of the perceiver, as is the case with thinness, colour, and so forth in the body. (Similarly the effects of ignorance also are not attributes of the self). Objection: But everybody perceives pleasure, pain, desire, effort, etc. (as belonging to himself). Reply: Even then the man who perceives them is admittedly different from them. Objection: Well, we have referred to the person who says, ‘I do not know what you say, I am confused.’ What do you say to that? Reply: Let him regard himself as ignorant and confused; we, however, accept one who sees like this as knowing and possessed of a clear perception. For instance, Vyāsa has said that the owner of the field (the self) reveals the entire held (body and mind), including desire. And there are hundreds of texts like the following: ‘(He truly sees who) sees the Supreme Lord living the same in all beings—the immortal Principle in the midst of things perishable’ (G. XIII. 27). Therefore, the Ātman by itself has no difference due to bondage or liberation, knowledge or ignorance, for it is admitted to be always the same and homogeneous by nature. Those, however, who, considering the reality of the self to be different, reduce the scriptures dealing with bondage and liberation to mere plausible statements, would dare to find the foot prints of birds in the sky, to pull it with their clenched hands, or to cover it as with a skin. But we can do no such thing. We hold that it is the definite conclusion of all the Upaniṣads that we are nothing but the Ātman, the Brahman that is always the same, homogeneous, one without a second, unchanging, birthless, undecaying, immortal, deathless and free from fear. Therefore the statement, ‘He is merged in Brahman’ (this text), is but a figurative one, meaning the cessation, as a result of knowledge, of the continuous chain of bodies for one who has held an opposite view. Transmigration, which was the thing that was sought to be explained by the example of going into the waking and dream states, has been described; so also its causes—knowledge, work and past experience. Those limiting adjuncts, the elements comprising the body and organs, surrounded by which the self experiences the transmigratory existence, have also been mentioned. After stating, as a prima facie view, that their immediate causes are good and bad deeds, the cause has finally been decided to be desire. Having described bondage and its cause by showing that the decision of the Brāhmaṇa on this point agrees with that of the Mantra, the Śruti has concluded the topic with the words, ‘Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate)’ (IV. iv. 6). Then beginning with, ‘But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates)’ (Ibid.), liberation consisting in the identity with all, which is the thing that was sought to be explained by the example of the state of profound sleep, has been described. And the cause of liberation has been stated to be the attainment of all objects of desire through their becoming the Self. But since this state is unattainable without Self-knowledge, the cause of liberation has by implication been stated to be the knowledge of Brahman. Therefore, although desire has been said to be the root of bondage, it is ignorance that, being the opposite of what leads to liberation (knowledge), has virtually been stated to be the cause of bondage. Here also liberation and its means have been dealt with by the Brāhmaṇa. To strengthen that, a Mantra, called Śloka, is being quoted: -translation by Swami Gambhirananda (RKM Order)
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् शङ्करभाष्य (śrīmad bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad śaṅkarabhāṣya) (4.4.6)

Take the case of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi who was diagnosed of Osteosarcoma which is an exteremely painful form of bone tumer. However, the saint was completely detached mentally fron its suffereing. Just as in the lines of निर्वाणषट्कम् (nirvāṇaṣaṭkam) quoted above, the Bhagavan was in a complete state of निर्विकल्प अद्वैत वैराग्य भावन (nirvikalpa advaita vairāgya bhāvana) thereby he was clearly able to differentiate between his real and apparent self. The following reminiscences from his life testifies the same.

 ”The golden jubilee of Ramana’s advent at Tiruvannamalai was celebrated in 1946 and a published souvenir was brought out to mark the occasion. In 1947 his health began to fail. He was not yet seventy, but looked much older. Towards the end of 1948 a small nodule appeared below the elbow of his left arm. As it grew in size, the doctor in charge of the Ashram dispensary cut it out. But in a month’s time it reappeared. Surgeons from Madras were called, and they operated. The wound did not heal, and the tumour came again. On further examination it was diagnosed that the affliction was a case of osteosarcoma, an extremely painful form of bone cancer. The doctors suggested amputating the arm above the affected part. Ramana replied with a smile: ‘There is no need for alarm. The body is itself a disease. Let it have its natural end. Why mutilate it? Simple dressing of the affected part will do.’ Two more operations had to be performed, but the tumour appeared again. Indigenous systems of medicine were tried, and homeopathy too. The disease did not yield to treatment. The sage was quite unconcerned and was supremely indifferent to suffering. He sat as a spectator watching the disease waste the body. But his eyes shone as bright as ever and his grace continued to flow towards all beings. Crowds came in large numbers. Ramana insisted that they should be allowed to have his darshan. Devotees profoundly wished that the sage should cure his body through an exercise of supernormal powers. Some of them imagined that they themselves had had the benefit of these powers which they attributed to Ramana. Ramana had compassion for those who grieved over the suffering, and he sought to comfort them by reminding them of the truth that Bhagavan was not the body: ‘They take this body for Bhagavan and attribute suffering to him. What a pity! They are despondent that Bhagavan is going to leave them and go away – where can he go, and how?’”

In fact, when Bhagavan’s doctors enquired him about his pain, the saint replied back in a complete detached wisdom “Yes there is great pain, but it is not happening to me. I am aware that there is great pain happening to the body; I know that there is great pain happening. I am seeing it, but it is not happening to me”. Such saints have actually realized that the phenomenal pain, pleasure, joy, sorrow, love, hate etc. are mere illusory (read transient) fabrications spun by the body-mind complex due to false idetntifcation of the self with the ego. By the process of आत्म शुद्धि (ātma śuddhi – spiritual cleansing) they have attained मनो नास (mano nāsa – mental annhilation)

The next important concept to understand is that जीवन् मुक्ति(jivan mukti – living liberation) is considered to be an सद्यस्क कृत (sadyaska kṛta - immediate effect) of such an विज्ञन (vijñana-  enlightenment). There is neither ऐहिक (aihika - spatial) nor विपुल (vipula -  temporal) delay in मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation) for the बुद्धात्म (buddhātma - enlightened soul). This fact is testified in various scriptural revealations. The बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् (bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad) (4.4.14), for example, very clearly declares “इहैव सन्तोऽथ विद्मस् तद् वयम् (ihaiva santo'tha vidmas tad vayam – verily even here we may know this)”. Similarly, the कठोपनिषद् (kaṭhopaniṣad) declares: “अत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुते (atra brahma samaśnute – he attains Divinity here)”.

 Such a मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation) is also called as सद्योमुक्ति (sadyomukti – immediate liberation) because the मोक्ष (mokṣa - liberation) in this case is सध्यः (sadhyaḥ – immediate), unlike in the case of क्राम मुक्ति  (krāma mukti – gradual liberation) of the प्रेतात्म (pretātma – disembodied soul) through its transmigratory journey across space-time. We already, observed that there is a time delay for those souls operating from प्रलयाकल (pralayākala – delusion factor) as they will get liberated only during the महा प्रलयकाल (mahā pralayakāla – grand delusion epoch). Similarly, there is a spatial transition (delay) in terms of the soteriological journey, technically called as देवयान (devayāna– path of gods) discussed earlier (while learning about the soteriological pathways).

In other words, जीवन् मुक्ति(jivan mukti – living liberation), as already discussed, is the the natural home-state of an immediate now-here experience i.e., வீடுபேரு / मोक्षसिद्धि (vīṭupēru / mokṣasiddhi – liberational accomplishment) after समयक्सम्बोध (samayaksambodha - complete enlightenment). To quote Bhagavan Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, “Why speak of God realisation in the future? It is here and now –only the veil that hides it has to be destroyed. When the veil falls to pieces THAT which eternally IS shines forth – the ONE, self-luminous.” Again, this fact is very clearly testified by श्री दत्तात्रेय (śrī dattātreya) in the ज्ञान खाण्ड (jñāna khāṇḍa – gnostic section) of the sacred त्रिपुरारहस्य (tripurārahasya), according to whom:  

Original	Transliteration	Translation
न मोक्षो नभसः एष्ठे न पाताले न भूतले । सङ्कर्पव्जेनाच्छुद्भस्वरूपस्य प्र्थव सः ॥ स स्वरूपात्मकत्वात्त नाऽग्राहः स्यात्‌ कदाचन । केवलं मोहमात्रस्य निरासेन कृतार्थता ॥ अन्यो मोक्षो न सम्भाव्यः कृतकत्याद्विनाइयते । स्वरूपादतिरिक्तथ्ेन्छशशङ्गसमो हि सः ॥ स्वरूपं सबेतः पूर्णमन्यो मोक्षः क सम्भवेत्‌ । स्वरूपे सम्भषन्‌ मोक्षो दर्षेणप्रतिब्रिम्बबत्‌ ॥ लोकेऽपि वन्धविगमादते मोक्षो न भावितः । विगमोऽभाव एव स्यात्‌ सत्यो भावात्मकः कथम्‌ ॥ भावाभावात्मक वस्तु न हि सम्भवति क्वचित्‌ । तथा च स्वाप्नभावाश्र भावाभावोभयात्मकाः ॥ सत्याः स्यु्वाधहेतोस्ते त्वसत्या इति चेच्छुणु । चाथोऽभात्रग्रत्ययः स्यात्‌ ग्रस्य याभावकालिकः ॥ यस्येवं वाधयोगः स्यात्‌ सोऽसत्यो न हि चेतरः । अस्ति सर्वेस्य इञ्यस्य वाधोऽप्रत्ययक्षालिकः ॥ तस्मादसस्यमेव स्यात्‌ भावाभावात्मना स्थितम्‌ । यस्याभावस्पशलेशः कदाचित्‌ इुत्रचिन्नहि॥ एवंविधन्तु चिचख सत्यं सवोत्मना स्थितम्‌ । तस्पाडिभिन्नमोक्षस्तु न सत्यः स्यात्‌ कथञ्चन ॥ मोक्षः पूर्णस्वरूपस्य सङ्गत अथनयुच्यते । चेस्यवर्जनमात्रेण चितिः पूणा प्रकीचिता ॥	na mōkṣō nabhasaḥ ēṣṭhē na pātālē na bhūtalē । saṅkarpavjēnācchudbhasvarūpasya prthava saḥ ॥ sa svarūpātmakatvātta nā'grāhaḥ syāt kadācana । kēvalaṁ mōhamātrasya nirāsēna kr̥tārthatā ॥ anyō mōkṣō na sambhāvyaḥ kr̥takatyādvināiyatē । svarūpādatiriktathēnchaśaśaṅgasamō hi saḥ ॥ svarūpaṁ sabētaḥ pūrṇamanyō mōkṣaḥ ka sambhavēt । svarūpē sambhaṣan mōkṣō darṣēṇapratibrimbabat ॥ lōkē'pi vandhavigamādatē mōkṣō na bhāvitaḥ । vigamō'bhāva ēva syāt satyō bhāvātmakaḥ katham ॥ bhāvābhāvātmaka vastu na hi sambhavati kvacit । tathā ca svāpnabhāvāśra bhāvābhāvōbhayātmakāḥ ॥ satyāḥ syuvādhahētōstē tvasatyā iti cēcchuṇu । cāthō'bhātragratyayaḥ syāt grasya yābhāvakālikaḥ ॥ yasyēvaṁ vādhayōgaḥ syāt sō'satyō na hi cētaraḥ । asti sarvēsya iñyasya vādhō'pratyayakṣālikaḥ ॥ tasmādasasyamēva syāt bhāvābhāvātmanā sthitam । yasyābhāvaspaśalēśaḥ kadācit iutracinnahi॥ ēvaṁvidhantu cicakha satyaṁ savōtmanā sthitam । taspāḍibhinnamōkṣastu na satyaḥ syāt kathañcana ॥ mōkṣaḥ pūrṇasvarūpasya saṅgata athanayucyatē । cēsyavarjanamātrēṇa citiḥ pūṇā prakīcitā ॥	Moksha (liberation) is not to be sought in heavens, on earth or in the nether regions. It is synonymous with Self-realisation. Moksha is not anything to be got afresh, for it is already there only to be realised. Such realisation arises with the elimination of ignorance. Absolutely nothing more is required to achieve the aim of life. Moksha must not be thought to be different from the Self. If it is a thing to be acquired, its absence before attainment is implied. If it can be absent even once why should not its absence recur? Then Moksha will be found to be impermanent and so not worthwhile striving for. Again if it can be acquired, acquisition implies non-self. What is non-self is only a myth, like a hare growing horns. [Note: Sri Ramana says that Moksha is another name for T or 'Self'.] The Self is on the other hand all-round Perfection. So where else can Moksha be located? If it were so, Moksha would be like a reflection in a mirror. The popular idea is that Moksha is release from bondage, meaning destruction of ignorance. Ignorance is itself a form of thought: destruction is its absence; to bring about its absence is only another form of thought. So then on investigation the whole statement gets involved and becomes meaningless. For a thought cannot be destroyed and still be a thought. Dream is said to be real as well as unreal (in experience and in substance, respectively). Really speaking, dream too is not unreal. For, what is unreality? Impermanency. This again is recognised by the thought of the non-continuity of the dream which implies the thought content to be dream. Is it truly non-continuous then? The intellect being always continuous, there cannot be a moment of the nonexistence of anything. So then, even at the moment of thinking the absence of a thing, that thing really exists in the mind and so it is real and not unreal. All objects are, however, nonexistent when not contemplated by the mind. But reality is determined by the being or non-being which cannot be ascertained by the mind, because its denial implies the formation of the mental image of the denied thing and it is absurd to deny its existence. In the absence of denial, the thing must be and so everything is. Thus the existence of pure intelligence is proved by its manifestation, as all else, and thus Moksha cannot be exterior to the Self, anything to be gathered, acquired or assimilated. Moksha is defined as the steady glow of the Self in perfection. (The question arises whether the Self is imperfect at one time, i.e., in ignorance and perfect at another time, i.e., in Moksha). The non-modification of Abstract Intelligence into the objective phenomena is said to be the state of perfection. (So there is no contradiction.) -Translation by Swami Sri Ramananda Saraswati (Mungala S. Venkataramaiah)
Sanskrit Reference: त्रिपुरारहस्य (tripurārahasya) (18.18-28)

    Finally, I would like to conclude on this topic by quoting the golden verses from the श्रीमद् योगवासिष्ठ  महारामायणम् (śrīmad yogavāsiṣṭha mahārāmāyaṇam) wherein the enlightened sage श्री वसिष्ठमहऋषि (śrī vasiṣṭhamahaṛṣi) very clearly summarizes to भगवान् श्री रामचन्द्रमूर्ति (bhagavān śrī rāmacandramūrti), the whole essence of the जीवन्मुक्तिविद्या (jīvanmuktividyā – science of living liberation).

Original	Transliteration	Translation
श्रीवसिष्ठ उवाच । यथास्थितमिदं यस्य व्यवहारवतोऽपि च । अस्तं गतं स्थितं व्योम जीवन्मुक्तः स उच्यते ॥ बोधैकनिष्ठतां यातो जाग्रत्येव सुषुप्तवत् । या आस्ते व्यवहर्तैव जीवन्मुक्तः स उच्यते ॥ नोदेति नास्तमायाति सुखे दुःखे मुखप्रभा । यथाप्राप्तस्थितेर्यस्य जीवन्मुक्तः स उच्यते ॥ यो जागर्ति सुषुप्तस्थो यस्य जाग्रन्न विद्यते । यस्य निर्वासनो बोधः स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते ॥ रागद्वेषभयादीनामनुरूपं चरन्नपि । योऽन्तर्व्योमवदच्छस्थः स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते ॥ यस्य नाहंकृतो भावो यस्य बुद्धिर्न लिप्यते । कुर्वतोऽकुर्वतो वापि स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते ॥ यस्योन्मेषनिमेषार्धाद्विदः प्रलयसंभवौ । पश्येत्त्रिलोक्याः स्वसमः स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते ॥ यस्मान्नोद्विजते लोको लोकान्नोद्विजते च यः । हर्षामर्षभयोन्मुक्तः स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते ॥ शान्तसंसारकलनः कलावानपि निष्कलः । यः सचित्तोऽपि निश्चित्तः स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते ॥ यः समस्तार्थजातेषु व्यवहार्यपि शीतलः । पदार्थेष्वपि पूर्णात्मा स जीवन्मुक्त उच्यते ॥	śrīvasiṣṭha uvāca | yathāsthitamidaṃ yasya vyavahāravato'pi ca | astaṃ gataṃ sthitaṃ vyoma jīvanmuktaḥ sa ucyate || bodhaikaniṣṭhatāṃ yāto jāgratyeva suṣuptavat | yā āste vyavahartaiva jīvanmuktaḥ sa ucyate || nodeti nāstamāyāti sukhe duḥkhe mukhaprabhā | yathāprāptasthiteryasya jīvanmuktaḥ sa ucyate || yo jāgarti suṣuptastho yasya jāgranna vidyate | yasya nirvāsano bodhaḥ sa jīvanmukta ucyate || rāgadveṣabhayādīnāmanurūpaṃ carannapi | yo'ntarvyomavadacchasthaḥ sa jīvanmukta ucyate || yasya nāhaṃkṛto bhāvo yasya buddhirna lipyate | kurvato'kurvato vāpi sa jīvanmukta ucyate || yasyonmeṣanimeṣārdhādvidaḥ pralayasaṃbhavau | paśyettrilokyāḥ svasamaḥ sa jīvanmukta ucyate || yasmānnodvijate loko lokānnodvijate ca yaḥ | harṣāmarṣabhayonmuktaḥ sa jīvanmukta ucyate || śāntasaṃsārakalanaḥ kalāvānapi niṣkalaḥ | yaḥ sacitto'pi niścittaḥ sa jīvanmukta ucyate || yaḥ samastārthajāteṣu vyavahāryapi śītalaḥ | padārtheṣvapi pūrṇātmā sa jīvanmukta ucyate ||	Vasishtha said:—Who ever remains as he is, (i. e. without any perturbation in his worldly course), and continues intact as vacuity amidst society: such a one is called the living liberated. Who so is employed in his intellection only and seems to be sleeping in his waking state, though while conducting his worldly affairs: such a one is called the living liberated. Whose countenance is neither flushed nor dejected in pleasure or pain, (in joy or grief and such other reverses); and who remains contented with what he gets: such a one is called liberated while he is living. Whose waking is as a state of sound sleep, and who is not awake to the accidents of the waking state, and whose waking state is insensible of the desires incident to it: such a one is called liberated in his life. Who though actuated by the feelings of affection, enmity, fear and the like, is at rest, and as clear and undisturbed as vacuity within himself: such a one is called liberated while he is alive. Who has not an air of pride in him, and is not conceited (with a notion of his greatness) when he does or refrains to do anything: such a one is called self-liberated in his life time. Who at one glance or winking of his eye, has a full view of the whole creation and final destruction of the world, like the Supreme self (to which he is assimilated): such a one is said to be liberated in his life time. Who ever is not feared by nor is afraid of any body, and who is freed from the emotions of joy, anger and fear: such a one is liberated in life. Who is quiet and quietly disposes his business of this world, and who though he stands as an individual in the sight of men, attaches no individuality to himself; and who though a sentient being, is insensible to all impressions: such is the living liberated soul. Who being full of all possessions, and having every thing present before him, remains cold and apathetic to them, as if they were useless to him: such a man is liberated in his life. -Translation by Vihari Lal Mitra
Sanskrit Reference: श्रीमद् योगवासिष्ठ महारामायणम् (śrīmad yogavāsiṣṭha mahārāmāyaṇam) (3.9.4-14)

 

श्री गरुु भ्यो नमः (śrī gurubhyo namaḥ - salutations to holy gurus)॥