[Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Three states/types of Reality (sattaa-traividhyam) - Taittiriya Shankara Bhashya

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Subbuji
I've prompted Chatgpt to offer this reply,


------------------------------

Thank you for collecting these references and especially for highlighting
Śaṅkara’s gloss on *“satyam cānṛtam ca satyam abhavat”* in Taittirīya
2.6.1. The distinction you draw between *paramārthika* and *vyāvahārika* is
certainly helpful pedagogically.

That said, one caution may be worth adding.

The presentation risks suggesting that the *three-level scheme
(paramārthika–vyāvahārika–prātibhāsika)* is explicitly taught by the Śruti
itself. Textually, however, this taxonomy does not appear in the Upaniṣads
as a formal doctrine, nor does Śaṅkara introduce it as an ontological
stratification of reality.

In the Taittirīya bhāṣya, for example, Śaṅkara does not posit “levels of
being.” Rather, he restricts the *scope of the word satya* contextually:

व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं सत्यम् … एकमेव हि परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म

Here *vyāvahārika satya* simply means “empirically valid for transactional
purposes,” like water contrasted with a mirage; it does not denote a second
grade of reality. Ontologically speaking, he is explicit: *Brahman alone is
real; everything else has only dependent or borrowed status (mithyā).*

So in Śaṅkara the terms function *epistemically and pedagogically*, not as
a three-tier metaphysics. The later “three orders of reality” framework is
a convenient explanatory schema developed by the tradition, but it should
not be read back into the Śruti or into Śaṅkara as if he were proposing a
graded ontology.

Framed this way, the passage reinforces his consistent method: not
constructing intermediate realities, but progressively sublating all
empirical standpoints into non-dual Brahman.
------------------------------

🙏🙏🙏

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 6:29 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This post has the Bhashya, Sureshwarachar's Taittiriya Bh.Vartika,
> Vanamala and Sayana Bhashya:
>
> https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/paramarthika-vyavaharika-satyam/
>
> In the Bhashya, Shankara specifies three types of 'reality' based on the
> Taittiriya mantra: *सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् . *For Vedantins, the
> Taittiriya Upanishad is the Pramana for the Three types of reality.
>
> The Bhashya for the above passage is:
>
>  सत्यं च व्यवहारविषयम् , अधिकारात् ; न परमार्थसत्यम् ; एकमेव हि
> परमार्थसत्यं ब्रह्म । इह पुनः व्यवहारविषयमापेक्षिकं सत्यम् ,
> मृगतृष्णिकाद्यनृतापेक्षया उदकादि सत्यमुच्यते । अनृतं च तद्विपरीतम् । किं
> पुनः ? एतत्सर्वमभवत् , सत्यं परमार्थसत्यम् ; किं पुनस्तत् ? ब्रह्म, ‘सत्यं
> ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्म’ इति प्रकृतत्वात् ।
>
> SSS translates the Bhashya thus:
>
>
> (ಭಾಷ್ಯಾರ್ಥ)
>  ಸತ್ಯವು ಎಂದರೆ ವ್ಯವಹಾರವಿಷಯವಾದ ಸತ್ಯವು ; ಏಕೆಂದರೆ (ವ್ಯವಹಾರದ ವಿಷಯದ್ದೇ) ಈ
> ಪ್ರಕರಣವು. (ಇದು) ಪರಮಾರ್ಥಸತ್ಯವಲ್ಲ ; ಏಕೆಂದರ ಪರಮಾರ್ಥಸತ್ಯವಾದ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮವು ಒಂದೇ,
> ಇಲ್ಲಿಯೋ ಎಂದರೆ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ವಿಷಯವಾದ ಬಿಸಿಲುಕುದುರೆಯ (ನೀರ) ಮುಂತಾದ ಅನೃತಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿದರೆ
> (ಸತ್ಯ) ವಾಗುವ  ಆಪೇಕ್ಷಿಕವಾಗಿರುವ ನೀರು ಮುಂತಾದದ್ದನ್ನೇ ಸತ್ಯ ಎಂದು ಕರೆದಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
> ಮತ್ತು ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾಗಿರುವದು ಅನೃತವು.
>
> (ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ :-) ಇದೆಲ್ಲವೂ ಆದದ್ದು ಯಾವದು ?
> (ಉತ್ತರ :-) ಸತ್ಕವು ; ಪರಮಾರ್ಥಸತ್ಯವು.
> (ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ :-) ಆ (ಪರಮಾರ್ಥಸತ್ಯ )ವೆಂಬುದಾದರೂ ಯಾವದು ?
>
> 2. ಹೋಲಿಕೆಯ ಸತ್ಯ, ನೀರು ಬಾಯಾರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಹಿಂಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ; ಬಿಸಿಲು ಕುದುರೆಯ ನೀರು
> ಹಿಂಗಿಸುವದಿಲ್ಲ ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ನೀರು ಆಪೇಕ್ಷಿಕಸತ್ಯ ; ಬಿಸಿಲು ಕುದುರೆಯ ನೀರು ಅನ್ನತ.
>
> Translation of SSS's translation:
>
> *(Translation of the Bhāṣyārtha)*
>
> By *satya* (truth) is meant *vyavahāra-satya*—empirical or transactional
> truth; because the present context pertains to empirical dealings. This is
> not *pāramārthika-satya* (absolute truth); for the absolute truth,
> Brahman, is one alone. Here, in contrast to the unreal entities of
> empirical experience such as the mirage-“water,” those things like actual
> water—which are relatively true (*āpekṣika*)—are spoken of as *satya*.
> That which is opposed to this is *anṛta* (untruth).
>
> *(Question):* Then what is that which truly is?
> *(Answer):* *Sat*—the absolute truth.
>
> *(Question):* And what indeed is that (absolute truth)?
>
>    1.
>
>    Although inert objects such as stones are also effects of the
>    conscious Brahman, consciousness does not manifest distinctly in them. *(Sūtra
>    Bhāṣya 2.1.6)*
>    2.
>
>    Comparative truth: water quenches thirst, whereas the water of a
>    mirage does not. Therefore, water is *relative truth*, while
>    mirage-water is *unreal*.
>
> The point to be noted is:
>
> *SSS is not refuting Shankara and the Taittiriya Upanishad stating three
> types of reality:* The pāraarthika reality is Brahman, the vyavaharika
> reality is given the analogy of water and a third category, the 'unreal'
> which is also a part of the creation, is given the analogy of mirage water
> by Shankara.
>
> Thus, the Upanishad itself gives three types of reality.* If SSS was
> opposed to the three types of reality, he should have disagreed with the
> Upanishad and Shankara, *and by extension, with Sureshwara, who in the
> Taittirya Vartika has explicitly named two satyas: vyavaharika and
> paramarthika.
>
> More details can be seen in the linked article.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>
> --
> 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/CAKk0Te2sb2gMnGcQybGPst61PpzGR8i0L0yU90dM7rgNwAwo9w%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2sb2gMnGcQybGPst61PpzGR8i0L0yU90dM7rgNwAwo9w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>