[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: 'Satyasya Satyam..' of the Upanishad explained in the Bhagavatam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 4:24 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji,
> First,  Is Gita 13.2 the only best reference in PTB for anadi jiva?
>

Namaste

There is this Brahma sutra itself 2.1.35 which says the samsāra is anādi.
There is the BGB 15. 3 in this regard. Samsāra, bondage, can't be without
the jiva. Hence jiva is anādi.

>
> //So, the Upanishad says: Brahman became the entire universe and gave the
> break up from several angles. This includes the three types of Reality.  //
> "
> I asked Chatgpt 5, " post sankara advaita make a distinction between
> vyavahara satta and pratibhasika satta that isn't found in bhasya sankara.
> Both of course accept paramartika satta. Find citations from bhasya"
>
> I found it interesting that Chat's answer referred specifically to our
> Tait terms with a distinctly different understanding than you have offered.
> I have not confirmed other citations.
>
> You’re right that the later “three-tier” labels—*prātibhāsika–vyāvahārika–pāramārthika
> sattā*—are not Śaṅkara’s own terminology. In the bhāṣyas, Śaṅkara
> explicitly contrasts *paramārtha-satya* with a *vyavahāra/āpekṣika*
> (contextual, comparative) “satya,” while illusory items are called *anṛta
> / mithyā / bhrānti-jñāna / adhyāsa*, not “prātibhāsika-sattā.” Here are
> clean places to cite *from Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya*:
>
>    1.
>
>    *Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6 (on “satyam ca anṛtam ca satyam abhavat”)* —
>    Śaṅkara spells out the two levels in so many words:
>
>    *सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्, अधिकारात्, न परमार्थसत्यम्; एकमेव हि
>    परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं
>    मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमित्युछ्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् ।*
>    (Adbhutam's Blog
>    <https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
>    )
>    (“‘Satyam’ here is of the realm of *vyavahāra*, by context, *not* the
>    *paramārtha-satya*; the one paramārtha-satya is Brahman. And in this
>    world the vyavahāra-domain ‘truth’ is *āpekṣika* (comparative): water
>    etc. are called ‘true’ only *relative* to illusions like mirage-water;
>    *anṛta* is the opposite.”)
>
>
>
In that blog of mine, I have cited the Vanamālā commentary to the
Tai.Up.Bhashya of Shankara where he says: the word 'anRtam' of the
Upanishad denotes prātibhāsika object.

Also, it is no defect if Shankara has not used the term 'prātibhasika' to
denote 'apparent'.  It is enough if he has given an equivalent
term/meaning.  For that matter the term 'adhyāsa, āropa, adhyāropa-apavāda'
etc. are not there in the Upanishads that are popular to all. Non-advaitins
would charge Shankara of using terms not found in the Upanishads.

I am citing from that blog of mine:

Sri Sureshwaracharya concurs with the Acharya’s Bhashya!!

In his Taittiriya Upanishad Bhashya Vartika, while commenting, in verse
form, the Bhashya of Bhagavatpada, for the mantra: ‘सत्यं च अनृतं च
सत्यमभवत्’, the VArtikakAra says:

व्यावहारिकमेवात्र सत्यं स्यादधिकारतः ।     (सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम्,
अधिकारात्, Bhashya)

पारमार्थिकसत्यस्य वाक्यान्ते समुदीरणात् ॥ 407  (परमार्थसत्यम् bhashya)

[The word satyam which occurs at the beginning of the sentence means
empirical truth because of the context and also because of the fact that
the absolute truth is spoken of at the end of the sentence.]


*It can be seen beyond doubt that Sri Sureshwaracharya unambiguously uses
the words ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ to comment upon
Bhagavatpada’s words: ‘paramArthasatyam’ and ‘vyavahAra-vishayam’.*
*It becomes certain that Sri Sureshwaracharya has initiated the use of the
two terms:  ‘pAramArthika satyam’ and ‘vyAvahArika satyam’ that have been
popularly used by the Advaita Acharyas of the Sampradaya initiated by
Shankara Bhagavatpada. *

Yes, 'anRta' of the Upanishad is given the meaning 'mithyā' by Shankara in
the Chandogya instance: 8.3.2.

warm regards
subbu

>
>    1.
>
>    2.
>
>    *Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.4 (vācārambhaṇa)* — Śruti’s “*mṛttikety eva
>    satyam*” underwrites Śaṅkara’s paramārtha/ vyavahāra reading: the *substratum
>    alone is satyam*; all “forms” are merely *names* in vyavahāra. (See
>    text+commentary presentation.) (Shlokam
>    <https://shlokam.org/texts/chandogya-6-1-4/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>)
>    3.
>
>    *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad bhāṣya (III.5.1 context)* — Śaṅkara contrasts
>    *paramārtha* and *vyavahāra* explicitly; the tradition often cites his
>    line (at III.5.1) that worldly *vyavahāra* proceeds as conditioned by
>    *paramārtha*—showing the two-level vocabulary in the bhāṣya itself. (Wisdom
>    Library
>    <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc118356.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
>    )
>
> What you *don’t* find in Śaṅkara’s bhāṣyas is the formal noun
> *“prātibhāsika-sattā.”* Illusory cases (rope-snake, nacre-silver, mirage
> water) are treated as *mithyā / anṛta / bhrānti / adhyāsa* within
> vyavahāra, not as a separately named “level of sattā.” For the classic
> rope-snake/nacre-silver usage in Śaṅkara’s Bṛhadāraṇyaka-bhāṣya, see
> standard editions and translations that quote these examples in the bhāṣya
> exegesis. (Wisdom Library
> <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad?utm_source=chatgpt.com>
> )
>
> If you want, I can pull page-exact Sanskrit from a specific edition (e.g.,
> Anandagiri-ṭīkā ed. for BṛU, or a particular TU-bhāṣya printing) to match
> your citation style.
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:26 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 5:33 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
>> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste Subbuji,
>>> //Yes, Shankara does, on the basis of the Tai.Up. passage, accepts
>>> three states of Reality.  The distinction between vyavaharika and
>>> pratibhasika is also specifically stated by him with that analogy. It is
>>> certainly a case of 'existential status'. This is because the three
>>> 'existences' differ from each other on the basis of their 'status'. I had
>>> clarified earlier that the prātibhasika satya is called so because the
>>> imagined snake is 'existing' for that person under the sway of that error.
>>> Till the correction happens, for him, the snake exists.  Hence it is called
>>> so: apparent existence.  That is its status.  The vyavaharika is also held
>>> to be existent to the one under the sway of the avidya pertaining to his
>>> true svarupa, Brahman. Hence it is named so.  Till Brahma jnana dispels
>>> that avidya, the existence of this is having that status.  And Paramarthika
>>> Satya is for Brahman which is signified by the term Satyam in the Tai.Up.
>>> 'satyam jnanam anantam' and the Brihadaranyaka 'Satyam' as opposed to the
>>> other 'satyasya' which is actually vyavaharika.  //
>>>
>>> //Yes, Shankara does, on the basis of the Tai.Up. passage, accepts
>>> three states of Reality.//
>>> You will have to show me exactly how this passage can be interpreted as
>>> 3 states of reality. I repeat my earlier understanding:
>>> "It became the formed and the formless" which nonetheless "still
>>> continue to be inseparable from the Self in time and space." Then, from
>>> this premise follows the notions of vyavarhara vishaya and paramartha
>>> satta,  Then peripheral to the main discussion comes this notion of water
>>> as the vishaya of vyavarhara and mirage water as anrta.
>>>
>>
>> I am surprised you still have doubts about this.  Those passages are
>> about creation, how Brahman creates the world. So, the Upanishad says:
>> Brahman became the entire universe and gave the break up from several
>> angles. This includes the three types of Reality.
>>
>>>
>>> //The distinction between vyavaharika and pratibhasika is also
>>> specifically stated by him with that analogy. //
>>> yes, I can see how that might follow Post-Sankara/PS bias but  it is
>>> that sentence that I call weak evidence
>>>
>>
>> I think it's an art to somehow deny the meaning of innocent passages of
>> Shankara and attribute them to Post-Shankara.
>>
>>>
>>> //the prātibhasika satya is called so because the imagined snake is
>>> 'existing' for that person under the sway of that error. Till the
>>> correction happens, for him, the snake exists. //
>>> personhood/seer and the snake/seen belong to the same order of reality.
>>> Personhood is just as imagined as the illusory snake. But you are saying
>>> the person holding the illusion is different enough from the illusion
>>> to seek and gain moksa. I believe that concurs with Madhusudhana's jiva as
>>> one of the 6 anadi-s.
>>>
>>
>> Actually the idea that jiva is anādi is in the Bhagavad gita itself:
>>
>> प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि । विकारांश्च गुणांश्चैव विद्धि
>> प्रकृतिसम्भवान् ॥ १९ ॥    13.19
>>
>> 13.20 Know both Nature and also the *individual soul* [Prakrti is
>> sometimes translated as matter, and purusa as spirit.-Tr.] to be verily
>> without beginning; know the modifications as also the qualities as born of
>> Nature.
>>
>> Bhasya's teaching however, as pointed out by SSSSji, is that jiva/jagat,
>>> bondage/liberation must be understood as sastra's superimposition.
>>> Jivatvam is an error of understanding - there ever was a jiva who was
>>> bound. All in line with Karika 2.32
>>>
>>
>> For that matter the entire shāstra is a superimposition.
>>
>>>
>>> //Nor should it be concluded that the world of waking made of ether,
>>> etc. elements is* not absolutely real.//*
>>> *double negatives confuse meaning*
>>>
>>
>> I think there was some mix up in the above. It should be ////Nor should
>> it be concluded that the world of waking made of ether, etc. elements is*
>> absolutely real.//*
>>
>> *Best regards*
>>
>>
>>>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "advaitin" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1-AoLbaR_aB%2BWVM9UDjf3puYgVKKmp2VZAb6mY3%2B3OFQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1-AoLbaR_aB%2BWVM9UDjf3puYgVKKmp2VZAb6mY3%2B3OFQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG5XcHcZMJptR2L_y-dpZ3nKHRnzx526bQzrk-5Ctzjuw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG5XcHcZMJptR2L_y-dpZ3nKHRnzx526bQzrk-5Ctzjuw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>