When, as a consequence of the knowledge of the Self, there is nothing visible, then it is said that there is jīvanmukti, and never otherwise.

The syntactic construction is rigorous: “ātmajñānānubandhena” — as a consequence (anubandha) of the knowledge of the Self — not as a temporal consequence, but as a necessary and inseparable result. The knowledge of the Self and the cessation of the visible are not two correlative events; they are the same event described from two perspectives: that of the subject who knows and that of the object which ceases to appear as independent.

The final negation “na cānyaiva kadā cana” — never in any other way — is a total exclusion. There are no alternative paths, no partial jīvanmukti, no intermediate states. This has been misinterpreted as doctrinal rigidity, but it is simply a logical precision: if the problem is ignorance of one’s own nature, the solution is knowledge of one’s own nature. There is no other cause that can produce that specific effect.

From the perspective of Haṭha Yoga, this corresponds to the description of samādhi in the Haṭha Pradīpikā (IV.7): “When the mind is dissolved through prāṇāyāma, then samādhi occurs.” The dissolution of the mind (mano-laya) is not annihilation but a resolution back into its source. When the wave recognizes it was never separate from the ocean, the wave-ocean distinction ceases to be an ontological distinction and becomes a conventional, descriptive distinction (vyavahāra).

The syntactic construction is rigorous: “ātmajñānānubandhena” — as a consequence (anubandha) of the knowledge of the Self — not as a temporal consequence, but as a necessary and inseparable result. The knowledge of the Self and the cessation of the visible are not two correlative events; they are the same event described from two perspectives: that of the subject who knows and that of the object which ceases to appear as independent.

The final negation “na cānyaiva kadā cana” — never in any other way — is a total exclusion. There are no alternative paths, no partial jīvanmukti, no intermediate states. This has been misinterpreted as doctrinal rigidity, but it is simply a logical precision: if the problem is ignorance of one’s own nature, the solution is the knowledge of one’s own nature. There is no other cause that can produce that specific effect.

From the perspective of Haṭha Yoga, this corresponds to the description of samādhi in the Haṭha Pradīpikā (IV.7): “When the mind is dissolved through prāṇāyāma, then samādhi occurs.” The dissolution of the mind (mano-laya) is not annihilation but a resolution into its source. When the wave recognizes it was never separate from the ocean, the wave-ocean distinction ceases to be an ontological distinction and becomes a conventional, descriptive one (vyavahāra).