|
“The Jīvanmukta
Changes Nothing” A Druid minim derived from
the Upanishads and Immature Vedāntic Reason I. Introduction The
statement "The jīvanmukta changes
nothing" is not a claim of passivity or detachment, nor is it the
echo of renunciate romanticism. It arises from a clear, mature understanding
of the ontological identity between self and SELF — between ātman and Brahman — as preserved in
Upanishadic insight and rigorously clarified through a monist (not dualist or
non-dualist) lens. The jīvanmukta, the one liberated while still living, is not a moral exemplar, a
passive witness, or a this-worldly absentee as some Vedantic dualists and
their commentators claimed He is a fully-functioning iteration of Brahman,
whose liberation consists not in withdrawing from the world but in cognising
it as it truly is — Brahman functioning as identifiable reality, ‘one without a second.’ Hence, he
changes nothing — not because he lacks power or volition, but because, as
Brahman, there is nothing to change. II. Ontological Monism: All This Is Brahman The
Upanishadic declaration “sarvam khalvidaṁ brahma” (Chāndogya
Upaniṣad 3.14.1) does not posit a second
world behind appearances. It asserts that this world — the concrete,
complex, rhythmic unfolding of things, the whole spectrum of atmans — is Brahman. Not figuratively. Not
analogically. Ontologically. There is
no metaphysical remainder, no deeper veil to penetrate. What appears is not a
mask to be removed, but reality as interface. This is the essence of monism
(eke tattva): there is only one procedure, namely Brahman, and
that procedure is functioning via its n iterations (or
fractals)— not stillness, not silence, but doing, moving, manifesting. Therefore,
the world of the individual atman, Brahman in situ, is not to be improved,
escaped, denied, or spiritualised. It is to be understood and (its
procedure) completed. III. The Jīvanmukta’s
Realisation The jīvanmukta is not a mystic retreating from the world
into a realm of light. He is one who, being fully conscious that the world
happens (or acts) as Brahman, no longer superimposes illusions of
brokenness, lack, or progress or even the need for perfection. His
liberation is not a condition but a clarity, an awareness: he knows
that this world is (and always is) already it. He does
not identify with his personal ego, nor with the apparent separateness of
things. He identifies with himself as identical iteration of Brahman, the
Universal Identifiable Reality Emerging Procedure. Hence, he does not, cannot
cease action, cease happening. He acts, because the form he inhabits, a whole
but confined iteration of Brahman, must continue to function. This is
not ethical. It is not compassionate. It is not noble. Fidelity
here is not a virtue. It is not chosen. It is the structural response of
clarity derived from understanding: one who knows himself to be Brahman
does what Brahman does — he completes and thereby perfects his function. IV. Brahman’s Function Is the World’s Function The world
functions. Its ever-adapting procedures (or processes) — from digestion to
language, from respiration to ritual — are not governed by purpose, but by necessity.
The jīvanmukta, in knowing himself as Brahman,
submits wholly to this necessity, not as resignation, but as
recognition. He does
not oppose, resist, or revise the world. This is
perfect doing to complete Brahman’s function. Hence the druid’s
minim: ‘The
perfect slave is free!’ V. Against the Doctrine of Non-Doership The
standard Advaita Vedānta position often
insists that the jīvanmukta is a “non-agent” (akartā), that his actions are mere residues,
burnt ropes, karmic echoes without consequence. This is both religiously,
hence politically motivated and conceptually incoherent. The jīvanmukta does not stop functioning. He cannot.
Not does he change what he is on account of his liberation for he is Brahman.
His very body-mind complex is a part of the world’s emergence procedure — and
since the world is Brahman, then this functioning is Brahman’s own. He does
not aspire to “non-doership” or ‘pause’ or
’nirvana.’ His doing is not
motivated (albeit locally guided) by his ego, but it is still
doing — necessary, exact, and inevitable. VI. The False Promise of Ethics and Transcendence Ethics,
as ordinarily understood, presupposes an imperfect world requiring
improvement or correction. Liberated, the jivanmukta rejects such human
artifice. Nor does he continue to cling to the very human notions, not
reflected in nature, of good and evil. These are local evaluations, socially
expedient emergent phenomena, irrelevant to the fundamental urge to whole
performance (of the given). The jīvanmukta does not seek transcendence for he is
ever conscious of oneness. He does not “rise above” life for there is no
other to ‘rise to.’ Awakened to his ultimate true self = SELF, his seeking
ends. His vision is not elevated — it is clear. And he
understands: His job is to do his job
everyday job perfectly, thereby locally completing
the Brahman’s universal procedure. And if he does change that happens in order to improve his everyday survival, as he must as
mammal. In that he behaves no differently from the unliberated. VII. The Meaning of the Minim “The jīvanmukta
changes nothing.” ·
Not because he lacks agency, but because he knows
that the world, emerging as identical, if confined iteration of Brahman, is
perfect just as it is. ·
Not because he is passive, but because he is
perfectly aligned with what is already complete. ·
Not because he abstains from life, but because he
no longer misreads it. To
“change nothing” is not an ethical posture. It is the inevitable outcome of cognising
identifiable reality as it is: namely perfectly functioning,
self-sufficient, Brahman. VIII. Conclusion: The Maturity of Recognition The jīvanmukta is not a mystic, a saint, or a
renunciate. He is, in essence, the mature independent adult. He has
outgrown illusion — not just personal illusion, but the illusion of
transcendence. As one locally confined, hence identifiable and real
self-representing the unconfined, non-identifiable hence SELF, he is
perfectly alone, self-sufficient, independent. Consequently, whatever he does
is OK. He functions, just like his not yet liberated neighbour, as Brahman in
his space and therefore is not cognizable as liberated. The
’liberated’ individual fully understands his life as brief, once-off
emergent. Since, in principle, nothing needs to be changed, he gets on
with it (to the best of his ability). The
liberated being sees no need to change anything because nothing is lacking. Thus, the druid said: ‘Everyone is god in their space.’ |