Modern Vedānta teachers often present the path in this form:
- After knowledge of the Self, one must “abide in the Self” to mitigate old habitual patterns.
- Therefore, some kind of “post-enlightenment sādhana” is required to realign everything with this new understanding.
- And the reasons given are:
a) Even after knowing the real Self, one must understand that all else (previously negated) is also the Self,
b) For which one must revisit those things with the new vision.
But when I read Śaṅkara, what I see is quite different. He is emphatic that once knowledge arises, nothing remains to be done. His reasons, as I understand them, are the following:
i) In knowing the Self, all else is automatically known as the Self (sarvātmaikatva).
Śaṅkara on Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.7 writes:
“आत्मनि सर्वात्मत्वावगमात्… न किञ्चिदवशिष्यते विजिज्ञासितम्।”
ātmani sarvātmatvāvagamāt… na kiñcid avaśiṣyate vijijñāsitam.
“When the Self is known as the Self of all, nothing else remains to be known.”
ii) Because knowledge negates the knower-status (pramātṛtva), no pramāṇa-vyāpāra remains.
Śaṅkara in Brahma-sūtra Bhāṣya 1.1.4 states:
“प्रमातृत्वस्याविद्याकृतत्वात् विद्यायां निवर्तते।”
pramātṛtvasyāvidyā-kṛtatvāt vidyāyāṁ nivartate.
“Since the status of the knower is produced by ignorance, it ceases when knowledge arises.”
iii) Therefore, there is no further use of pramāṇas, no further ‘practice,’ no revisiting.
Śaṅkara on Bhagavad-Gītā 13.2 says:
“ज्ञाने सति प्रमाता न तिष्ठति।”
jñāne sati pramātā na tiṣṭhati.
“When true knowledge arises, the knower does not remain.”
iv) Hence, there is no other object left to revisit, as the one who would revisit is resolved.
In Upadeśa Sāhasrī 1.3, Śaṅkara writes:
“न च तस्य किञ्चिदवशिष्यते कर्तव्यम्।”
na ca tasya kiñcid avaśiṣyate kartavyam.
“For that one (who knows the Self), nothing whatsoever remains to be done.”
v) There is no scope for realignment because no independent entity remains for transaction.
Śaṅkara on Bṛhadāraṇyaka 4.4.6 says:
“तस्य सर्वाः संव्यवहाराः निवर्तन्ते।”
tasya sarvāḥ saṁvyavahārāḥ nivartante.
“All his empirical dealings come to an end.”
Given this clear contrast, the possible reasons may be:
1. What is spoken of as “ātman” may be two different things.
When ātman is ascertained as the essential nature, there cannot be two descriptions of it.
If a “you” remains who must abide, stabilize, revisit, or realign, then perhaps the ātman being pointed to is not yet the one Śaṅkara refers to as the ever-accomplished Self.
2. The negation of anatmatva (especially pramātṛtva) may be incomplete in modern teachings.
Śaṅkara is uncompromising: the knower-identity must be dissolved.
But modern teachers often soften or reintroduce the knower, perhaps to make the teaching more relatable. Non-knowerhood is not easy to grasp, appreciate, or communicate, so it gets reified again.
This is how it appears to me: what is called “post-enlightenment sādhana” may simply be the continuation of incomplete negation, not something required after true Self-knowledge.
Summary in Nepali:
शङ्कर vs आधुनिक शिक्षाहरू
आधुनिक वेदान्त शिक्षकहरू प्रायः यसरी बताउँछन्:
- आत्माको ज्ञान पाएपछि पनि पुराना बानीहरू कम गर्न “आत्मामा बस्न” आवश्यक हुन्छ।
- त्यसैले, केही प्रकारको “ज्ञानपश्चात् साधना” गर्नुपर्छ।
- कारण भनिन्छ: ज्ञान पाएपछि पनि बाँकी सबै कुरा आत्मा हो भनेर बुझ्न, त्यसलाई नयाँ दृष्टिले फेरि अनुभव गर्नुपर्छ।
तर शङ्करका अनुसार भने फरक छ:
- आत्मा जब वास्तविक आत्मा रूपमा जानिन्छ, तब बाँकी सबै कुरा स्वयँ आत्मा नै हुन्छ। (सर्वात्मैकत्व)
- ज्ञानले ज्ञाता-स्वरूप (जसलाई अज्ञानले बनाएको हो) समाप्त गर्छ।
- यसैले अब कुनै अभ्यास, प्रमाण प्रयोग, वा पुनरावलोकन आवश्यक छैन।
- पुनरावलोकन गर्ने व्यक्ति नै अन्त्य भइसकेको हुन्छ।
- त्यसैले कुनै पुनर्संयोजन वा अभ्यासको आवश्यकता हुँदैन।
संक्षेपमा, शङ्कर भन्नुहुन्छ कि साँचो आत्मा-ज्ञानपछि केही गर्न बाँकी हुँदैन।
आधुनिक शिक्षामा “ज्ञानपश्चात् साधना” भन्नु वास्तवमा अपूर्ण नकार (अज्ञानको भाग) जारी राख्ने कुरा मात्र हो।
शङ्कर अडिग छन्: ज्ञाता-परिचय पूर्ण रूपमा समाप्त हुनुपर्छ।