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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste Subbuji
Chatgpt 5 translation - accurate? I don't see the problem

*Satya and Anṛta*
Satya is one, anṛta is another. Satya is the truth. Anṛta is untruth. Satya
is permanent, unchanging, that which does not perish. Anṛta is that which
is perishable, transient. Satya is Brahman, the supreme Self, imperishable,
eternal, immortal, fearless. Anṛta is everything other than Brahman, all
the names and forms. Therefore, Brahman alone is *satya*, the rest is
*anṛta*. In this manner, *satya* and *anṛta* are opposed.
*(Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 2-1-20)*
------------------------------
Footnote

The difference between *satya* and *anṛta*; the meaning of *satya* in
different places; how the meaning of *satya* has been used in this context
— (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya p. 59).

(Here) the word *satya* means the Vedic sentences (*śruti-vākyas*).
(There) the word *satya* means Brahman, Paramātman.

How can there be two different meanings for the same word *satya*? The
difference is as follows: where the subject matter (viṣaya) is Brahman,
there *satya* means Brahman; but where the subject matter is Vedic
sentences (*śruti-vākya*), there *satya* means Vedic sentences.

Therefore here *satya* means *śruti-vākya*. Accordingly, in the first place
(ṛg-veda) the word *satya* is taken as referring to the Vedic words. Later
on, the word *satya* is to be understood as Brahman.

So the *satya* of one context (i.e., śruti) is different from the *satya*
of another context (i.e., Brahman).
------------------------------
Questions

   1.

   What is meant by *satya* and *anṛta* in this passage? Explain separately.
   2.

   Why is *satya* used in two different senses? Clarify with reasoning.
   3.

   How is the connection between *satya* and Brahman explained here?
   4.

   Explain with examples the way the same word (*satya*) conveys different
   meanings in different contexts.


On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 4:32 PM Vikram Jagannathan <vikkyjagan at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaskaram Michael ji,
>
> Will keep it shorter this time :)
>
> << There is no doubt we view the appearance of body and karma. The issue
> however concerns the view from Jnana itself - if pramatr, pramana, prameya
> are dependent on avidya, where is there 'a' jnani, 'the' jnani or the
> instruments to recognize duality or duality itself?  Are there many jnani-s
> or just one Jnanatvam?  >>
>
> Actually, this triputi is from our perspective too, and not from Jnana's
> perspective. From Jnana's perspective, it is the homogenous Chaitanya alone
> and nothing else whatsoever; no triputi. We view the continued appearance
> of the jnani's body and karma (BMI-V) due to our ignorance. This continued
> appearance of the jnani's BMI-V recognizes duality and interacts with it;
> again from our perspective alone and for our own benefit. There are as many
> jnani-s as we perceive as many jnani's functioning BMI-V. Jnana,
> all-through, is one and non-dual.
> As a recap:
> 1. Chaitanya's perspective = paramarthika perspective - universe is asat
> 2. Ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika ajnana perspective - universe is sat
> 3. Jnani's perspective = there are 2 sub-perspectives - 3a. and 3b.
> 3a. Jnani's perspective from the jnani's perspective = paramarthika
> perspective - universe is asat
> 3b. Jnani's perspective from the ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika jnana
> perspective - universe is mithya
>
> We at times blur the difference between 3a and 3b; this causes confusion.
>
> << Agreed but only if the teaching of avidya-lesa etc. is confirmed by
> bhasya, reason and universal experience. Brahman, moksa, avidya are all the
> adhyaropita teachings of sastra. I don't see the upaya of adhyaropa/apavada
> fundamentally presented by post-Sankara authors. >>
>
> Avidya-lesa indeed aligns with adhyaropa-apavada principle. The
> attribution of avidya-lesa to the jnani is indeed adhyaropa. We perceive a
> tattva-darshi jnani guru imparting jnana upadesha. We can either
> a) explain that this is due to avidya-lesa, due to our own avidya or
> b) the tattva-darshi jnani guru is actually not a tattva-darshi jnani guru
> or
> c) Advaita is no longer advaita but becomes dvaita, with plurality
> becoming eternally unsublatable.
>
> With a) the Advaita siddhanta remains completely self-consistent as the
> perception of this avidya-lesa is only due to our own avidya. When we
> overcome our avidya, then all avidya and avidya-lesa is completely removed
> and it is Chaitanya alone.
> With b) the teachings of the so-called tattva-darshi jnani guru (including
> Bhagavan Krishna) becomes falsified
> With c) Advaita siddhanta is utterly destroyed
>
> Both b) and c) are not conducive to Advaita siddhanta and are stances
> taken up by several purvapakshas.
>
> << --tattva-darshi jnani - is this person knowable to the ignorant? Do you
> just assume this of our guru? I've had the blessing of sitting at the feet
> of several teachers who I believe were tattva-darshi jnani-s. However, not
> one claimed such status yet they taught in a manner that convinced me they
> were full blown jnani-'s. So how are we to determine whether this
> charismatic guy is a jnani engaging in the world or still, despite a pure
> personality and pristine teachings may still be afflicted with empirical
> attachments? It is not an uncommon phenomena to learn of the scandalous
> demise of one of the spiritual heroes. Let us not assume by personality but
> determine by challenging the teaching to resolve doubt what is authentic
> Vedanta. >>
>
> True. One has to first become a jnani to recognize another jnani.
> Important to note that Jnana is one non-dual, but from our current
> perspective (ajnani perspective) the BMI-Vs of the jnanis are several and
> distinct. Therefore, from our current perspective it is appropriate to say
> that one BMI-V which has gained the Brahmakara-vritti-jnana (aka jnani) is
> capable of recognizing another BMI-V which has also gained this
> Brahmakara-vritti-jnana. All the while the absolute Jnana (Chaitanya) is
> one and non-dual. However, there are some clues in the scriptures including
> the stithaprajna-lakshna and shraddha / maha-viswasam (absolute trust and
> faith) is quite essential. Beyond this, it is actually not the student
> approaching a teacher's feet, but in actuality it is the teacher coming to
> a prepared student.
>
> << "the entity' you are giving entity status to snake where indeed the
> only entity is rope. >>
>
> Correct, but I do not know this until the dawn of rope knowledge. Until
> then, the entity is the snake as it is my current experience taken to be
> real. And any back-reference to this prior experience will also have to
> term the entity as a snake only.
>
> << Addendum citations and notes: >>
>
> I don't see any contradictions from any of your quoted references (except
> the last one - HOSS p42). Do you feel any of them contradicts what we have
> discussed so far?
>
> For the last reference (HOSS p42), I personally consider it a futile
> exercise to talk definitively about the state of a jnani when I am yet an
> ajnani. Let me first gain the jnana to then realize for myself what is
> annihilated and what remains. One person says Brahman alone exists, another
> says the universe will continue to be perceived; I do not wish to
> definitively judge one or the other as I am yet to understand the
> distinction and nature of my Self versus my antahkarana. Maybe they are
> both right but from these two distinct perspectives - Self versus
> functioning antahkarana.
>
> prostrations,
> Vikram
>
>
>> --
> 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/CAM7AOLfFQDP2BwzhpQoQ0CZe4Tz4UXEAawKTrfxb6Aqhpe4VjQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLfFQDP2BwzhpQoQ0CZe4Tz4UXEAawKTrfxb6Aqhpe4VjQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>