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

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

namaste subbuji, It's not Chatgpt that is adding anything, but rather that
the traditional presentation of the three levels of reality is a later
schema.not found in PTB systematically.
Your one Tait reference is not sufficient to establish the three-level
ontology as a systematic doctrine in the Upanishads or Shankara's Bhashya..
That's confirmed by SSS, Hacker, Alston,
and a host of other objective observers not just CHATGPT

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 12:17 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Chat gpt does not know that neither the shruti nor Shankara posit three
> types of ontological realities. The absolute reality is only one. That one
> alone has appeared into the vyavaharika and the error-based events/objects
> in the world. What is Chat gpt adding to this? Nothing.
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 6:06 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <
> michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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/CAAz9PvG4XF_V52-UxaP2gKvqPvCfiHX9W%3D5jVe7%3DhV-JaJNQZA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvG4XF_V52-UxaP2gKvqPvCfiHX9W%3D5jVe7%3DhV-JaJNQZA%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/CAKk0Te0D5giSwksoba0AR30dzzY7-steyD10hhp6RxmG1OSXBQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0D5giSwksoba0AR30dzzY7-steyD10hhp6RxmG1OSXBQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>