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

[V Subrahmanian]

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*


>>>