Bhāṣya
ननु कथं जीवन्मुक्तः ? देहवांस्तावत् जीवन्नित्युच्यते ; तस्य जीवतोऽपि यदि देहाभावो मुक्तिरभिप्रेयते, नासावुपपद्यते, विरोधात् ।न हि जीवतो देहाभावः सम्भवति ।अथ सत्यपि देहे भोगविच्छेदो मुक्तिरिति, तदपि च चतुरश्रम् ।सकलभोगकारणेन्द्रियसम्पत्तौ भोगविच्छेदस्य असम्भावितत्वात् ।मिथ्याज्ञाननिबन्धनो हि भोगः ; तस्य च संयग्ज्ञानेन निवृत्तत्वात् भोगविच्छेद इति चेत् ; न, बाधितस्यापि मिथ्याज्ञानस्य द्विचन्द्रादिज्ञानवत् अनुवृत्त्यभ्युपगमात् ।अन्यथा देहवानेव न स्यात् अत एव विदुषां जनकादीनां राज्यादिकं श्रूयते ।श्रुतिरपि देहवतो भोगविच्छेदं प्रतिषेधति — ‘न ह वै सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रिययोरपहतिरस्ति’ इति ।तस्मादयुक्ता जीवन्मुक्तिरिति ।
In plain words
Now, how can anyone be liberated while still alive? A person is called 'living' precisely because they have a body. If you claim that liberation means the total disappearance of this body while a person lives, that makes no sense because it is a contradiction—a living person cannot lack a body. If you argue instead that liberation is just the cessation of all worldly experiences while the body remains, that is equally flawed, because as long as the sense organs remain intact, experiences must continue. You might object: 'Worldly experience is rooted in illusion, and since true knowledge destroys illusion, experience therefore ceases.' But that is incorrect, because even after illusion is sublated by truth, it continues to linger in appearance, just like the illusion of seeing two moons. If false appearances did not persist in this way, an embodied sage could not even exist; yet the scriptures record that illumined figures like Janaka ruled kingdoms and engaged in worldly life. Scripture itself denies that an embodied person can be entirely free from experiences of pleasure and pain, declaring: 'For one who has a body, there is no total escape from the pleasant and the unpleasant.' Therefore, the concept of being liberated while living is untenable.
Close to the Sanskrit
Now then, how is one liberated while living? A possessor of a body is indeed spoken of as living; if of that living person even the absence of the body is intended as liberation, that does not hold, due to contradiction. For the absence of the body of a living person is not possible. Now, if the cessation of experience while the body yet exists is liberation, that also is not sound, because the cessation of experience is impossible when the wealth of sense organs causing all experience is present. Experience is indeed bound to false knowledge; and since that has ceased through complete knowledge, cessation of experience—if you say so; no, because it is accepted that false knowledge, even though sublated, continues like the knowledge of two moons and the like. Otherwise the possessor of a body itself would not exist; therefore the kingdom and the like of enlightened sages like Janaka is heard of. Revelation also prohibits the cessation of experience for one who has a body—'Indeed, for one who has a body and exists, there is no destruction of the pleasant and the unpleasant,' thus. Therefore, liberation while living is untenable.