[Advaita-l] looking for a comparative study on these two topics

[V Subrahmanian]

I had not given the definition for Satyam from Shankara's bhashya on the
Taittiriya Up.  I had copied just the definition for the anRtam (opposite
of Satyam) part.  Here is the Satyam definition:

 सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम् ।  The term
Satyam is in the Upanishad: satyam jnanam anantam brahma. Satyam is that
which never transforms into anything else/ any other state.

This satyam is free from bAdha.  त्रिकालाबाध्यं सत्यम्  in Advaita.

regards
subbu

On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 12:12 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 10:16 AM Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste  everyone:
>>
>> looking for a comparative study on these two topics
>> 1) substance attribute relationship in Advaita and comparison with other
>> vedantic schools
>> or in other words "guna-guni bhava" or "dharma-dharmi bhava"
>>
>> 2) dictionary meaning of sublate is: sublated; sublating
>>
>> transitive verb <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transitive>
>> 1
>> : NEGATE <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate>, DENY
>> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deny>
>> 2
>> : to negate or eliminate (something, such as an element in a dialectic
>> process) but preserve as a partial element in a synthesis
>> sublation
>> ˌsə-ˈblā-shən
>> <
>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sublate?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=s&file=sublat02
>> >
>>  noun
>> what is sublatability? Sat is defined as that which is not-sublatable. I
>> need a serious in depth explanation of what sublatability is?
>>
>
> That Brahman is unsublatable since it is 'Satyam' (in the Taittiriya
> Upanishad - satyam jnanam anantam brahma).  Shankara gives a very far
> reaching definition of what is Satyam and what is the opposite of it:
> anrtam:
>
> यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते । अतो
> विकारोऽनृतम् , ‘ वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ.
> ६ । १ । ४)
> <http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=6&id=Ch_C06_S01_V04&hl=%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8B%20%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A7%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D> एवं
> सदेव सत्यमित्यवधारणात् ।
>
> Shankara says above: That which does not change is known as satyam and
> that which changes, transforms, is anrtam.  Hence vikara (that which
> transforms) is anrtam. On the basis of the  Chandogya Shruti: that which is
> a transformation (transformed thing) is merely a word while the material
> cause of that thing alone is satyam.
>
>
>
>> Is adhyaropa apavada some kind of step-by-step process of sublation?
>>
>
> Yes.  According to Advaita, the entire corpus of the Veda, the subsidiary
> scriptural corpus, the texts authored by the Advaita Acharyas, etc. are all
> adhyaropa.  This includes the saguna brahman concept. This Mandukya Karika
> (an upanishadic mantra) sums up this:
>
> न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
> न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ 2.32 ॥ Mandukya Karika
> [ There is no dissolution, no creation, none who is bound, no aspirant,
> none desiring moksha, none liberated. This is the absolute truth.]
> We are reminded of the Brahmabindu Upanishad:
> https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc.../brahmabindu.html...
> <https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsanskritdocuments.org%2Fdoc_upanishhat%2Fbrahmabindu.html%3Flang%3Dsa%26fbclid%3DIwAR1MIpPf9DzXOt8V5YOzxWK0qo4ohlBXNHf0QAI7jsbSZ0bMNe1DRLDcL1U&h=AT15EPqnLIz__R6-rCUXIJHYQThc8wwYh_QeKzBsTluOamihZGWEwjYebZtNwoKWS1K3lX5Rv1R7ddkVVAh-EGwKTWP1Ecynwp_ZLMh8D8AWkhoQZR3FQl-ndndyCe6n3MqQ&__tn__=-UK-R&c[0]=AT3rKQnvJmsIThOjPk307cRSYzbhFdVaciwrz8zvpFs4h_tXHYBvL9N87mQG28gLtKghK9ELRJ8IBd4QaXY2-epTfbVKacD6Ta9XxDX6xyPwRLHidelfK5Qw2ZjHGB1s6SLU-580S9Ai4RPn5tp6tYe3E244cQ>
>
>
>> Are there just 2 levels of reality mainly  (vyavaharika and paramarthika)
>> in advaita?
>>
>
> Actually a third, prAtibhAsika satta, is also included, which is the day
> to day experience of rope-snake type of errors. This error does not need
> the Brahma Jnana to sublate it; it is enough if the knowledge of the
> substratum, the rope, etc. arises. The dream is another example of this
> category. Wakng up is enough to sublate the dream.
>
>
>
>> If so, does adhyaropa apavada, or even neti neti process accept many
>> levels
>> of reality since one level is sublated to get to the other?
>>
>
> The prAtibhAsika is a subset of vyavaharika satya. The latter requires
> Brahma jnana to sublate it.
>
>
>> Or it will be a flat acceptance of the same level of reality for all
>> experiences within the realm of vyavaharika satya (or duality of some
>> kind). Let me clarify this further. if someone says he had an experience
>> of
>> a deity and such a deity appeared in front of him and gave him some ananda
>> or bliss right here. Is this in the same level of reality as
>> experiencing some other experience like flying or bungy jumping which is
>> supposed to give some kind of a kick?  In other words are there different
>> levels of reality ascribed to different experiences which are somewhat
>> spiritual right here in this world: for example, Thiru jnana Sambandar it
>> seems was fed milk by divine mother Parvati. Is that experience as unreal
>> as any other experience here (within the sphere of relative reality)? Is
>> the experience of Saguna brahman in some way,  and the experience of a
>> good
>> movie here, at the same level of reality? (relatively real but absolutely
>> unreal? or non existing like an imaginary snake superimposed on a rope?)
>>
>
> All exepriences, even the Akhandakara vritti that launches one in the
> Mukti anubhava, are regarded part of the vyavaharika, in other words,
> mithya.  Only that such special experiences are regarded significant/useful
> to the ultimate avidya-dispelling goal. But still they belong to the
> Vyavaharika. This is from the Paramarthika satya point of view where
> Nirguna Brahman alone is the sole Reality.  Remember the Gaudapada Karika
> mentioned earlier.
>
> To sum up, the ultimate, absolute point is: There was no jiva ever. There
> was no creation ever. None ever was bound and hence none ever was a seeker
> and none ever got liberated.  All the talk of creation, jiva, bondage,
> seeking, liberation - is unreal. The Bhagavatam 11th Canto is the best
> proof of this.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
>
>
>>
>> FYI, I teach mata-traya at the Hindu University of America. I am
>> collecting
>> true referenceable information that is justifiable and is derived from
>> authentic works of vedanta starting from the pioneering founder Acharyas
>> and later ones too.
>>
>> namaste,
>>
>> *Best Regards,*
>>
>> *Krishna Kashyap*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>