What it claims
Mokṣa names release from saṃsāra — the conditioned existence in which an apparent self passes through successive embodiments, accumulating and discharging karma, mistaking what it is. The word's etymology is straightforward — Sanskrit muc-, to loosen, set free — and the territory it covers is the exit from a cycle that the entire Hindu literature, with rare exceptions, takes for granted as the default human situation. Of the four classical puruṣārthas — the legitimate aims of human life: dharma (right conduct), artha (material wellbeing), kāma (pleasure and love), mokṣa (liberation) — the first three are pursued within the conditioned situation. Mokṣa is the way out of the situation altogether. The schools differ on what the way is and what the released state looks like; they do not differ on its centrality.
Three readings of release
The classical Sānkhya-Yoga reading treats mokṣa as the kaivalya — aloneness, isolation — of puruṣa (consciousness) once prakṛti (manifest nature) has stopped being mistaken for the self. Patañjali's eight-limbed yoga is, on this reading, the technical means by which that uncovering takes place. The devotional schools — the bhakti traditions of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism — read mokṣa as eternal communion with the chosen form of God: not annihilation of the individual but the saturation of the individual by the divine, as the Bhagavad Gītā describes through Kṛṣṇa's instruction to Arjuna. The non-dual Advaita Vedānta reading systematised by Ādi Śaṅkara is more radical: mokṣa is not an event in time at all. There is, in the final analysis, no separate self to be liberated; the jīva is Ātman is [Brahman](lexicon:brahman); what looks like bondage is māyā — a real appearance, not a separate reality. Mokṣa on this reading is the recognition that the saṃsāra one was trying to escape was, all along, the way the one undivided reality appears to a knower who has not yet seen through their own assumed separateness.
Embodied liberation
A distinction the Vedāntic literature treats as load-bearing: between videhamukti — liberation at the dropping of the body — and jīvanmukti — liberation while still embodied. The orthodox view in many earlier schools held the released state was reached only at death; the Advaita commentators after Śaṅkara argued, against this, that mokṣa could be — and in the lineage's most direct exponents was — recognised in this life and lived from. The jīvanmukta — the one liberated while alive — became the prototype that the modern Indian non-dual lineage assumes. The recovered teaching of Ramana Maharshi at Tiruvannamalai and the household dialogues of Nisargadatta Maharaj in Bombay are both, in classical terms, the speech of jīvanmuktas; the modern Advaita tradition has more or less abandoned the older videhamukti-only reading.
Where the recognition is pointed at in the index
Nisargadatta Maharaj's *I Am That* is the bluntest book-length pointer in the corpus — householder dialogues from a Bombay shopkeeper that proceed by undoing the apparent self until the question of release stops making sense in its initial form. Rupert Spira's long-form answers and *Being Aware of Being Aware* work the same Advaita argument with greater philosophical patience. Mooji's satsang and Francis Lucille's exchanges belong to the same family — each treats the seeker's bondage as a misperception that direct investigation undoes. The classical Hindu vocabulary is also live in the corpus: Sadhguru's *Inner Engineering* frames the project of yogic practice in terms recognisable from the puruṣārtha scheme, and Paramahansa Yogananda's *Autobiography of a Yogi* carries the kriyā yoga understanding of progressive purification as the path to mokṣa across into English.
What it isn't
Mokṣa is not nirvāṇa. The two terms are sometimes treated as synonyms in popular Western Buddhism-and-Hinduism summaries, but the underlying anthropologies differ: nirvāṇa operates in a Buddhist frame in which the anātman doctrine denies a permanent self to be liberated, while mokṣa in most Hindu schools assumes an Ātman whose nature is awareness. The functional reports converge — release from the cycle of clinging, recognition of what was always present — and contemplatives across the two traditions have, when given the chance, generally recognised one another. The doctrines that frame the recognition do not collapse into one. Nor is mokṣa an experience to be acquired and then maintained; in the Advaita reading particularly, treating it as such is exactly the kind of self-protective project the recognition undoes. The awakening entry maps the broader family of terms — bodhi, kenshō, fanāʾ, self-realisation — within which mokṣa is the Hindu name.
— end of entry —