Tom: Shankara writes the following in his commentary of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.29.7. My comments are interspersed in italicised red with Shankara’s writings in black.

Here Shankara is making the point that strictly speaking there is no knowing or knowledge in Self-Knowledge/Self-Realisation/The Self, meaning there is no existence of or involvement of the mind in Self. He gives the analogy of water being thrown into a larger tank of water – that initial water does not retain its separateness by which it can know the larger body of water into which it was thrown. Self-knowledge is just a phrase used to point to That which cannot be put into words.

If there was an entity that could know Brahman or know of Brahman, then that would imply 2 entities, Brahman and and knower of Brahman. Or it would imply differentiation of Brahman. Either of these would contradict shruti (revealed scripture/revealed knowledge).

Similarly, Shankara states that bliss is not cognised in Self-Realisation for the same reasons. Rather Bliss is the nature of Self, not something experienced by the Self or by some self-realised entity or person (which is another illusion).

Incidentally, Shankara also reveals just how radical liberation is, stating that in liberation there is no body, no organs, no mind, no knowledge:

Also see: What exactly is Jnana (knowledge) according to Shankara and Gaudapada and the scriptures?

[Shankara:] Absolute separation from the body is liberation, and when there is no body there can be no organs, for they will have no support . Hence too there will be no knowledge, there being no body and organs. If knowledge could arise even in the absence of the body and organs, there would be no necessity for any one to possess them. Moreover (if Brahman as Knowledge Absolute cognises the bliss in liberation), it will contradict the oneness of Brahman.

Tom: Shankara clearly states in liberation there is total or absolute separation from Body, and then says there is no body in liberation. Without a body, there can be no mind and without a mind there can be no cognition or knowledge (in the ordinary sense of these words).

We see similar teachings from Sri Ramana Maharshi: in Ulladu Narpadu verse 12, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

True Knowledge is Being, devoid of knowledge as well as ignorance of objects. Knowledge of objects is not true knowledge. Since the Self shines self-luminous, with nothing else for It to know, with nothing else to know It, the Self is Knowledge. Nescience [ignorance] It is not.

In Upadesa Saram verse 27, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes:

That is true knowledge which transcends
Both knowledge and ignorance,
For in pure knowledge
Is no object to be known.

OBJECTION: Suppose we say that the Supreme Brahman, being eternal Knowledge, ever knows Itself as Bliss Absolute?

REPLY: No, (this has just been answered). Even the person under bondage, when freed from relative existence, would regain one’s real nature (Brahman). (So the same argument would apply also) .

Like a quantity of water thrown into a tank, one does not retain a separate existence so as to know the blissful Brahman. Hence, to say that the liberated person knows the blissful Self is meaningless. If, on the other hand, the liberated one, being different from Brahman, knows the bliss of Brahman and the individual self as, “I am the Bliss Absolute”, then the oneness of Brahman is contradicted, which would be against all Srutis; and there is no third alternative.

Tom: See my explanation in the introduction above

Moreover, if Brahman ever knows Its own bliss, it is superfluous to distinguish between awareness and unawareness. If It is constantly aware of this bliss, then that is Its nature; hence there is no sense in maintaining that It cognises Its own bliss.

Tom: the point here is that if Brahman is ‘constantly aware of it’s own bliss’, then this bliss is simply the nature of the Self, as Self is One, and it doesn’t make sense to think of an entity that cognises or perceives bliss in some way in Self-Realisation.

Such a view would be tenable if ever there was the possibility of Its not knowing that bliss, as for instance one knows oneself and another (by an act of will). There is certainly no sense in distinguishing between a state of awareness and one of unawareness in the case of one whose mind is uninterruptedly absorbed in making an arrow, for instance.

Tom: Shankara’s argument here is saying that to speak of ‘constantly knowing bliss’ during self-realisation would only make sense if there would be a possibility of not knowing bliss during self-realisation, which is not possible, so again, bliss is the nature of Self and not a cognised object.

If, on the other hand, Brahman or the Self is supposed to be knowing Its bliss interruptedly, then in the intervals when It does not cognise Itself, It must know something else; and the Self would become changeful, which would make It non-permanent.

Tom: If the bliss of Brahman came and went, or increased and decreased, then that would mean the Self is subject to change (which it isn’t) and is therefore impermanent (which it isn’t).

Hence the text, ” Knowledge , Bliss “, etc, must be interpreted as setting forth the nature of Brahman, and not signifying that the bliss of the Self is cognised.

Tom: Regarding the initial statement of Shankara’s above, namely that there is no body in Liberation, here are some quotes of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s that say the same, taken from Guru Vachaka Kovai:

86 Don’t ask, “How did this error rise,
Why this ignorance that the Self
Itself is as the world transformed?”
Seek rather and find out to whom
This happened, and the error [Tom: of the world appearance] will
Persist no more.

87 What is the Self’s self-transformation
As the world? A coil of straw
Appearing as a snake? Look hard,
You see no snake at all. There is
No transformation, no creation, none,
No world at all. [Tom: ie. ajata vada]

97 Only the mind, by maya’s might
Deluded, and looking outward sees
The body. The true Self knows no body.
To call the Self of Pure Awareness
The body’s owner or indweller
Is an error.

[Tom: This is reference to Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna states the Self is the knower of the body, and various other scriptures which advise that the Self is somewhere deep within the body, dwelling in each and everyone’s body, here Bhagavan Ramana is saying even this is not true, pointing us to a deeper teaching]

1230 The things you think of as existing
Do not exist. But That of which
You know not if it does exist
Or does not [Tom: ie. the supreme birthless deathless unchanging ever-pure blissful Self], That alone exists.